Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Agricultural Imports (Quotas)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department is taking to initiate bilateral quota agreements to restrict the importing of agricultural products.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): We have quotas on certain agricultural and horticultural imports, but I have no current plans to introduce quotas for other items.

Mr. Roberts: Would not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that the extension of bilateral quota agreements could prevent the importation of commodities already produced here and that this would greatly help the planned expansion of home food production?

Mr. Peart: As a general principle, we have always adhered to a multilateral conception and we still think this the right course. We do have quotas for apples and pears—although these are not bilateral—and for main crop potatoes and hops and for butter, for example; but the general principle is multilateral trade.

Food Prices

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the figures for the increase in food prices over the period November, 1967, to January, 1968; and what estimates he has made of the changes over the period January, 1968, to March, 1968.

Mr. Peart: Between mid-November, 1967, and mid-January, 1968, food prices rose by about 2½ per cent. due mainly to the normal seasonal increases at this time of the year and to the effects of the foot-and-mouth epidemic on the price of meat. Retail food prices are affected by many factors including the weather, availability of supplies, stock levels and special offers by manufacturers and retailers. I cannot therefore give an estimate of the change for the period January to March, 1968.

Mr. Roberts: Would not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that, if the full effects of devaluation become felt, the total increase before the year is out could be about 25 to 30 per cent. and that the impact will be greatest on the lower-paid workers and social security recipients? Would not lie also agree that his ability to curb prices may determine the future of the British economy and also the future of the Government?

Mr. Peart: I would hesitate to accept the figure put by my hon. Friend. I cannot isolate the increase caused by devaluation. But obviously price stability is important. There will be price increases, as I have said, but, through our constant watch and the early warning system, we have achieved a restraining effect.

Mr. Godber: Would not the right hon. Gentleman be more emphatic in repudiating the figure suggested by his hon. Friend, which is surely absurd if what the right hon. Gentleman has said previously bears any relation to reality? Incidentally, we on this side are not concerned with the point raised by the hon. Member about the future of the Government. We are not worried about that.

Mr. Peart: I was answering my hon. Friend politely but it was a repudiation and I stress that it was.

Agricultural Holdings (County of Holland)

Mr. Body: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of his tenants in the County of Holland have full-time agricultural holdings of less than 20 acres.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): 93.

Mr. Body: As the Wise Report recommended that these 93 holdings should no longer be regarded as viable, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that less hardship would be caused to the tenants if they could become part-time holdings?

Mr. Mackie: I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter but we are trying to get these holdings amalgamated into bigger units in due course, and if we make them part-time or allow the holders to have outside holdings, this will inhibit the move towards amalgamation.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has concluded his investigations into the source of the current foot-and-mouth epidemic; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has now decided to keep the ban on the importation of meat from the countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic in force pending the findings of the independent inquiry which he has undertaken to set up.

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is still his intention to retain the ban on certain imported meat only up to 4th March; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. More: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now undertake not to remove the present temporary ban on importation of meat from South America until a recommendation has been received from the proposed committee of inquiry into the foot-and-mouth outbreak.

Mr. Peart: I cannot today add to what I said on 15th February either about the origins of the epidemic or about the temporary suspension of meat imports. I will make a statement on 4th March.

Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread local belief that this epidemic originated from a consignment of Argentine lamb? Is he also aware that, ever since the Gowers Report, a strong shadow of suspicion must fall on Latin-American meat? Will he take this into account in his statement?

Mr. Peart: Obviously I take account of what the Gowers Report said. As I have stated before, I have had a report prepared by my Chief Veterinary Officer which is now being studied. This will be taken into account in the review of the temporary suspension of imports.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the delay caused by his not answering questions about the ban has caused the greatest gloom in agricultural areas? If—I sincerely hope that he does not—the right hon. Gentleman decides to lift the ban, will he remember that it is vital that it should be kept on mutton and offals and that no carcases should come here which are not decapitated?

Mr. Peart: There has been no delay on my part. This is a very difficult problem. I made a full statement earlier and I shall make another on 4th March.

Mr. Stodart: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, with time running out and 4th March so near, his failure to make this statement today in answer to the Questions on the Notice Paper makes it abundantly clear that he has not yet made up his mind on this, and this is something which is bound to cause the greatest distress in farming circles?

Mr. Peart: Some hon. Members suggested—and I have seen Press accounts suggesting it—that I had made up my mind, and decided when I made my previous announcement that I was to commit myself to a certain line of action. I had not and I ask the hon. Member to be patient.

Mr. More: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread local suspicion that apart from the original outbreak, some of the later outbreaks have been primary outbreaks, due to the same cause, imported meat?

Mr. Peart: I do not know whether the hon. Member is stating categorically what he thinks is the cause. I must not commit myself until I make a final decision, which I will announce. I am still considering my Chief Veterinary Officer's report.

Mr. Ford: Would my right hon. Friend take care to base his findings on conclusive scientific evidence, and not take


too much note of the pleas voiced by hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Peart: I must say in all fairness, and my hon. Friend will appreciate this, that I must take note of my Chief Veterinary Officer's report. This is a scientific report.

Mr. Temple: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on supplementary financial assistance proposed by the Government to assist farmers who had their livestock slaughtered in the early weeks of the recent foot-and-mouth disease epidemic.

Mr. Temple: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, following further consideration, he will now make a statement concerning the special position for tax purposes of compensation payments made to farmers as a result of livestock losses in the recent foot-and-mouth disease epidemic.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the result of his consultations regarding measures to ensure that sums received by farmers as compensation as a result of foot-and-mouth disease are not subjected to tax.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement on the supplements proposed for the valuation of stock of early victims of the foot-and-mouth epidemic; and on the tax treatment of compensation for stock compulsorily slaughtered.

Mr. Peart: There has been an encouraging response to the measures already taken to assist restocking—including the National Farmers' Union's Restocking Scheme, the special arrangements for bringing the help of the Ministry's Advisory Service to each affected farmer and for encouraging grant-aided improvements, and the special £10 per acre Ploughing Grant.
In the light of this the Government will now be deciding what further help may be necessary. I hope to cover the taxation and compensation problems in my statement on 4th March.

Mr. Temple: Is the Minister aware that these "non-answers are becoming rather

monotonous? Is it not time that farmers knew exactly where they are? Farmers have had to face the problem of restocking and it is high time that they knew about their position with regard to the tax, which I raised in November, and with regard to valuations. This has been known to the Minister for many months.

Mr. Peart: The first part of my reply was not monotonous, and has been welcomed by the industry, and I believe by the hon. Member. The matter of taxation was mentioned by the Chancellor yesterday. My Department is still having consultations with the Treasury and the Inland Revenue, I will make a statement on 4th March. That is not being monotonous.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: The Chancellor said yesterday that he had not made up his mind; at the same time he wanted to do justice to the farmers. Would the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Chancellor that he can quite easily do this by reaching a decision quickly, and ensuring that these payments are not subject to tax?

Mr. Peart: I hope to announce a decision on Monday on this, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Biffen: In view of the somewhat ambivalent nature of the Chancellor's answer yesterday, could the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that he stands by the principle that the compensation shall be treated, in terms of tax, in such a way that it enables the farmer to replace the stock which has been compulsorily slaughtered?

Mr. Peart: I have said repeatedly that I am discussing this with the Treasury and the Inland Revenue and will make an announcement on Monday.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that any net compensation paid to farmers cannot be regarded as fair unless it is sufficient to replace every single beast that has had to be destroyed?

Mr. Peart: I understand what the hon. and gallant Member has said. This point of view has been put to me by farmers' representatives and that is why I am having discussions with the Treasury and Inland Revenue. I will make a statement on Monday.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to protect consumers from the effects of another outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take all possible steps to prevent further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease.

Mr. Peart: A number of import controls designed to prevent the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease are already in force. Additionally, the import of meat is at present suspended from certain countries.

Mr. Mills: Yes, but does not the Minister realise that if there is another serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease it is the consumer who will suffer probably more than the farmer because of increased costs? Will he take further steps to see that they are protected?

Mr. Peart: I am aware that the consumer also suffers as well as the producer. We did take steps.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does the Minister realise that the South Irish Government have imposed a ban indefinitely on imported meat from diseased areas? Does he regard it as coincidental that they have been free from the disease?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the policy adopted by the Eire Government. I am making a statement on the wider issue on Monday, as I said earlier.

Mr. Paget: Could my right hon. Friend tell us when he proposes to raise the restrictions in Northamptonshire, Rutland and Lincolnshire?

Mr. Peart: As soon as my veterinary advisers report to me and I believe that the precautions are adequate.

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the foot-and-mouth disease situation.

Mr. Peart: Since I reported to the House on 15th February there have been six further outbreaks, bringing the total to 2,339. 208,800 cattle, 100,700 sheep, 133,400 pigs and 39 goats have been slaughtered. Compensation paid or pay-

able to date is estimated to be £26·3 million.
The recent reappearance of disease at Spetchley, Worcestershire, has necessitated the reimposition of infected area restrictions over much of the county. Elsewhere it has been possible to reduce still further the areas already under restrictions and to combine them into one area.

Mr. Marten: In view of the possible spread or respread of infection, and as the Minister is now releasing imported meat out of cold storage, could he tell the House precisely what arrangements are being made for the disposal of the bones from this meat and the waste?

Mr. Peart: We have been in touch with the industry. There will be strict precautions and the bones will be destroyed. I am satisfied with what my veterinary advisers have said, that this is right in the circumstances.

Mr. Farr: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that new consignments of beef from Argentina have not already left for this country, in view of the fact that a week ago the London insurance market was asked to quote for these consignments?

Mr. Peart: I am not responsible for any consignments of meat which have left any countries outside of our country's jurisdiction. As far as I know there is none, but it could be that ships are leaving to take meat to other countries, but I am not responsible for that.

Mr. Godber: Arising out of the answer to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), can the right hon. Gentleman give a firm assurance that none of this meat is being sold across the counter in a form in which bones could become available?

Mr. Peart: Certainly. This meat being released is for processing only and several precautionary measures have already been taken. If the right hon. Gentleman would like me to, I can write and give him greater details.

Mr. Temple: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of three cases of recrudescence of this disease on infected premises, and


has he any plan for disinfecting once again all the infected premises to make certain that the virus has been got rid of?

Mr. Peart: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this has happened on previous occasions and I agree, in relation to the question of disinfecting premises again, that this is right, and this has been done.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total cost, so far, of the foot-and-mouth epidemic to public funds.

Mr. Peart: The total cost to public funds so far is estimated to be £35 million.

Mr. Digby: Does this include or exclude tax on compensation?

Mr. Peart: Compensation for animal slaughter is £27 million. I am in discussion with the Treasury on this matter, as I mentioned earlier.

Mr. Digby: Does that figure include it?

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that farms which have suffered from foot-and-mouth disease, and then been declared free of the disease, have caught it a second time on restocking; and if he will consider imposing a minimum period before restocking can take place.

Mr. Peart: It is the normal practice not to permit restocking until six weeks have elapsed from the date of slaughter or four weeks from the date of final disinfection, whichever is the earlier. This period is sufficient in the vast majority of cases but occasionally there have been second outbreaks of disease on farms after restocking. I do not think it would be desirable to extend the present minimum period before restocking but I am taking other steps to minimise the risks of a second outbreak on a previously infected farm.

Sir C. Osborne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the second outbreak has caused a great deal of anxiety among farmers who want to restock, and that they would appreciate guidance from him on this, because apparently they will

run greater financial risks if they restock and fail the second time?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of this. Indeed, as I said in reply to a previous Question, this has occurred before. This was a matter of disinfection. We examine each case, and as a result of our examination we find that we are perhaps able to give even further advice to farmers.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that those unfortunate farmers who have had a second outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease will get the same compensation, or at any rate not less than they did on the first occasion?

Mr. Peart: I said that I shall make a major statement on Monday on compensation. This will cover these farmers as well.

Beef Production

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will launch a five-year plan to stimulate home beef production and secure the permanent replacement of South American imports.

Mr. Peart: We announced in September, 1965, a five-year selective expansion programme for the agricultural industry in which beef production plays an important part. Progress under that programme is now being considered in the Annual Review in the light of all the relevant factors.

Mr. Farr: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for beef production this plan simply is not working? Has his attention been called to the fact that the latest statistics for 1967 show that the beef cow herd actually declined by 3,000 in that year?

Mr. Peart: The total breeding herd is up by 125,000–3 per cent.—between December, 1965, and December, 1967. The beef breeding herd is up by 93,000, and this despite foot-and-mouth losses. I hope the hon. Member will not be too pessimistic.

Mr. Maclennan: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the targets in the selective expansion plan announced in 1965 are adequate in view of the opportunities for import saving presented by devaluation?

Mr. Peart: I would accept that the broad approach in the selective expansion programme is a reasonable one, at which we ought to aim.

Imported Animal Feed

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the total annual increase in the bill for imported animal feed, due to devaluation.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): Assuming a price increase of one-sixth, the landed cost of imported animal food would be increased by about £25 million. In practice, because of other factors, including substitution of home-produced materials, the increase should be less.

Mr. Farr: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Minister is fully aware of this significant added factor, the increase in costs, for beef producers? Would he bear it in mind at the Price Review?

Mr. Hoy: I am certain that those who act for the N.F.U. will have brought it to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Godber: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that at this Price Review, and thereafter, the Government will not be taking action to raise the cost of imported feedingstuffs through increasing minimum import prices? May we have an assurance that if they choose to do anything at all it will be through the levy system?

Mr. Hoy: That is another question. The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend was asking what the approach was and I was telling him. There are two items in the agricultural programme which are compensated for automatically. Any other rises, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, are dealt with when the Annual Review is taking place.

Groceries (Price Increases)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the hundreds of grocery price increases since the beginning of 1968 are in accordance with the Government's policy; and what action he intends

to take to protect the British public from unjustifiable price increases when wages and salaries are pegged.

Mr. Peart: The Government's price surveillance arrangements are designed to ensure that no price increases of significance are made unless they are justified. I am satisfied that these arrangements are working well. Some price increases must be expected, though the mere counting of lines, including variations of size, pack and flavour, can mislead people outside the trade.

Mrs. Short: In so far as some price increases are inevitable because of devaluation and imported products, does my right hon. Friend not think that a case has been made out to control imports not vis-á-vis goods from any particular country, but by making importers place the money to cover the cost of imports with the bank?

Mr. Peart: I do not think that that would be practical or possible. The real answer is to make sure that our constant watch and early warning arrangements work.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister stop wriggling over this? Does he realise that these increases are the direct result of Socialist policies such as devaluation and S.E.T.? Is he aware that the cost of living will never be held steady while we have a Socialist Government?

Mr. Peart: I am rather surprised that the hon. Member should say that I am wriggling. If one looks at the commodities and price increases, there has been foot-and-mouth which has had an effect upon beef, but that is nothing to do with Socialist policies, it was an outbreak of disease. There have been higher prices for lamb and pork but those are seasonal. Cabbage and cauliflower prices have risen, but again this is a seasonal factor. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right.

Mr. Godber: Will the Minister tell us what is his estimate of the increased cost of grocery prices which will result from the Transport Bill now going through the House?

Mr. Peart: That is another question and I could not give a precise figure, as the right hon. Member knows.

Agricultural Production

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assurances he has given to the National Farmers' Union and other interested bodies of his intention, through the Price Review, to ensure that agriculture will play a new and major part in the national effort to save imports.

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is now taking to obtain an increase in agricultural production.

Mr. Peart: The steps necessary to enable agriculture to play its part in the national economy are among the matters being considered at the Annual Review now in progress, and I cannot anticipate the outcome. I would, however, refer the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) to my statements in the House on 4th December and 21st December.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: The Minister will be aware that the country is being exhorted to make devaluation work. Does he realise that this is probably the greatest and perhaps last opportunity to enable agriculture to play the great part which it undoubtedly can play in this operation?

Mr. Peart: Again, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should be pessimistic. I would not say that this was the last opportunity. There are always opportunities. The Price Review is the medium whereby we assess the rôle which the industry can play in the economy. We are doing that.

Mr. Maclennan: I understand that my right hon. Friend cannot anticipate his statement on the Price Review, but can he give an assurance that the present predicament of the hill and upland section of agriculture in Scotland, in particular, will be given special consideration at this time because of its sharply declining profitability?

Mr. Peart: Representing a constituency which has many hill and upland farms, I am naturally aware of the problems of such farms. The point has been

noted. This is a matter which we are Agricultural Production examining.

Mr. John Wells: Would the Minister bear in mind when dealing with matters of increasing agricultural production, which is referred to in Question No. 13, that over one-sixth of all agricultural production is horticultural and is not covered by the Price Review? Therefore, will he not always fob us off with Price Review answers?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of that. I gave an answer to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on hill and upland farms. I agree that horticulture is not covered by the Price Review. It has other assistance.

Imported Meat

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the value and what are the sources of the extra beef imported as a result of the ban on imports of meat from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic.

Mr. Peart: The main sources of beef imports shipped since 4th December last are the Irish Republic, Australia and New Zealand. It is not so far possible to make any useful comparison between actual arrivals and what might have come under different conditions. Nor could I really isolate the effect on total supplies of any single factors such as the suspension of imports from other sources.

Mr. Jopling: What discussions has the Minister had with the Governments of these countries to see whether, in the event of his being able to keep on the ban on imported meat from countries where foot-and-mouth is endemic, they could supply the meat we have been getting from South America in particular?

Mr. Peart: I am always in touch with countries which export meat to us. This is a continuous association.

Sir J. Gilmour: Since Australia has suffered from very severe droughts over the last two years, would the Minister agree that once it has recovered from them there will be scope for importing more meat from Australia?

Mr. Peart: Yes, but I am often pressed by representatives of producers at home not to import any more from the Commonwealth. I am always in touch with Australia and I have great sympathy with her position.

Livestock Haulage Vehicles

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the agricultural industry expressing concern over the proposal of the Government to reduce the hours worked each day by drivers of livestock haulage vehicles, because of the suffering and inhumanity which will result; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. John Mackie: None, Sir.

Mr. Jopling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very severe disquiet felt by many people who haul livestock because of the provisions of the Transport Bill, which is now in Committee? Is he aware that the Bill is likely to put very severe on-costs on to farmers and to cause great suffering and inhumanity to many animals which are transported?

Mr. Mackie: On-costs are a different matter. However, the transport people have organised their work to ensure that they comply with the regulations for the transport of animals, and I see no reason why they should not manage to do this under the new Bill.

Meat (Suspension of Imports)

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the sources of any representations made to him to lift as from 4th March the ban which he imposed on certain imported meat, and of those which he has received asking for the ban to be extended; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Peart: I have received many representations about the suspension of imports. I have been urged to lift the suspension by domestic meat traders, food manufacturers, and overseas suppliers. Farming interests, the National Federation of Womens' Institutes, and others have pressed me to retain the suspension. The replies I have given have been on the lines of my statement of 15th February.

Mr. Stodart: Has the Minister pointed out to those who have called for the raising of the ban the consistently poor trading balances which we have had with those who have supplied us and the enormous costs to the nation of the present oubreak of foot-and-mouth disease?

Mr. Peart: I have not got involved in an argument on this matter. My replies follow the general principles of my statement of 15th February.

Mr. W. Baxter: As this is a very complicated business, would my right hon. Friend be willing to prepare a paper on the advantages and disadvantages of curtailing meat imports from South America?

Mr. Peart: That is another matter. Hon. Members should await my statement next Monday.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Committee of Inquiry)

Mr. Grant-Ferris: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now announce the character of the inquiry into the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic, and who is to be the Chairman and the members of the Committee.

Mr. More: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the terms of reference of the proposed Committee of Inquiry into the foot-and-mouth outbreak will cover the origin of the present outbreak and also the organisation necessary to implement whatever future policy the committee may recommend.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in framing the terms of reference for the inquiry into foot-and-mouth disease, he will ask for an early or interim report on the risks inherent in removing the ban on meat from countries where the disease is endemic.

Mr. Hazell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce the membership of the Committee of Inquiry into the foot-and-mouth disease and its terms of reference.

Mr. Peart: On 15th February I announced that the Duke of Northumberland had agreed to act as Chairman of


the Committee of Inquiry and I gave the terms of reference. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT today the names of those who have agreed to serve as members.
As regards an interim report, I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement that I shall make on 4th March.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: May I ask the Minister whether among the members there is at least someone of high legal eminence, because this is the kind of inquiry on which somebody of that character is essential?

Mr. Peart: I can give that assurance.

Mr. More: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the question of the organisation necessary to implement the future policy recommendations will be within the terms of reference? This is a matter which, more than any other, has activated the minds of people in the controlled areas but not on the affected farms. This is a vital matter which must be dealt with.

Mr. Peart: As I said when I announced the inquiry, the terms of reference are very wide. This will be a matter for the Committee. I should have thought that it would do this.

Mr. Hill: In considering the statement which he is to make, will the Minister bear in mind that the whole of the veterinary profession which has worked so diligently to combat this disease is strongly of the opinion, officially expressed through the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association that the ban must be maintained until the Committee has had a chance of considering its necessity and making an interim report?

Mr. Peart: I have been asked about the composition of the Committee. What the hon. Gentleman says goes much wider. He should wait for my statement on Monday.

Mr. Kelley: Would the Minister ask the Committee to inquire into the advisability of total slaughter as we are or have been slaughtering strains which were exposed to infection and have probably produced resistant results? Therefore, we are losing the opportunity to produce a strain of cattle which is not subject to the disease.

Mr. Peart: I am sure that the question of slaughter policy and whether or not we should adopt a vaccine policy will be examined. These and many other matters will be covered.

Mr. Godber: While we are glad that we shall be able to find the names of the members of the Committee in the OFFICIAL REPORT, may I ask the Minister whether they mark the completion of the Committee? Will the Committee be starting work in the very near future? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the question posed to him by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when we last discussed this matter, namely, whether the Committee will meet frequently in view of the need to get on with the work as soon as possible?

Mr. Peart: I took note of what the Leader of the Opposition said on the last occasion. I thought my reply was adequate. It was a sensible suggestion. The members of the Committee can act quickly. Perhaps they would like to have another member, but six members with a Chairman makes seven. They can start work straight away.

The following are the members of the Committee of Inquiry:

Anthony Cripps, Esq., D.S.O., T.D., Q.C., J.P., Recorder of Nottingham.

Professor D. G. Evans, D.Sc., PH.D., F.C.Path., F.R.S., Professor of Bacteriology and Immunology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Charles Henry Plumb, Esq., Farmer.

Sir Edward Thompson, M.B.E., T.D., Chairman of Allied Breweries.

Professor David Walker, M.A., Professor of Economics, University of Exeter.

Professor Sir William L. Weipers, B.Sc., F.R.C.V.S., D.V.S.M., F.R.S.E., Director of Veterinary Education, University of Glasgow Veterinary School.

Milk

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to reduce and control the importation of skim milk powder and products, in view of the dilution effects they have on the pool price paid for liquid milk to British farmers.

Mr. Hoy: Returns to milk producers are maintained at the level considered appropriate through the mechanism of the milk guarantee, and the standard


quantity to which the guaranteed price applies in fact comprises a substantial quantity of milk which goes to the manufacture of milk products.

Mr. Mills: But does the hon. Gentleman realise the very serious effect which these imports have on the dairy industry? If he wants British agriculture to play its part in solving our present problems, he must start to do something about controlling imports.

Mr. Hoy: Obviously, we are always looking at this question, but I am bound to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the pool price paid to farmers during the current year is the highest on record.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the dairy farmers are completely bewildered and dismayed that the Government are to reduce the milk supplied to schools by £5 million worth?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not arise on this Question.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. It definitely does arise because skim milk and milk products are very closely associated.

Mr. Speaker: The question is about the importation of skim milk.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of that Ruling, I give notice that I will raise this matter at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment in order to prove that this is of interest to milk producers.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mills. No. 19.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. I have been trying to get in on Question No. 18. A lot of the milk going into the pool is not served to school children, and the pool price is much lower—Is. 6d., as against 3s. 4d., actually—and, therefore, school milk has a bearing on the Question.

Mr. Speaker: It would be in order to put down a Question about the effect of the new Bill on the pool price of milk to farmers. This Question is about the importation of skim milk.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the increase in numbers of dairy cows, he will ensure that the pool price for milk is not diluted.

Mr. Hoy: This point will be taken into account at the Annual Review in accordance with the assurance given in 1966.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In the light of those assurances which were given, does the Minister think it is right that the recent increase in the size of the dairy herd in this country has not been accompanied by any improvement in the net return to milk producers, and will he make sure that this is put right soon?

Mr. Hoy: I said in reply to a previous Question that the price they were receiving this year was the highest on record—[HON. MEMBERS: "Return?"]—return. Other points are bound to be taken into consideration but I stand by the assurance which was given in 1966.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Emrys Hughes—now in order.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Minister explain how the dairy farmers of this country are likely to be affected by the economy cut of £5 million in school milk? How is this likely to affect the pool price? Will the farmers get greater consideration, as a result of this deduction, in the market for milk? Is the Minister aware that the farmers of this country are dismayed and disgusted by the attitude of the Government—and also of the Opposition—who failed to serve them?

Mr. Hoy: If I do not reply to the latter part of that question, since I am not responsible for both sides of the House, my hon. Friend will not be surprised. The farmer receives a guaranteed price from the Board, and, of course, it is a safeguard for the control of milk production.

Mr. Stodart: Will the hon. Gentleman consider controlling imports of milk products? If he does not do so, will he say how he will safeguard the returns to producers and at the same time get expansion?

Mr. Hoy: As I have said in earlier replies, we were looking at this imported skim powder. About 30 per cent. of it, indeed, is supplied by New Zealand, and it is difficult to know what hon. Gentlemen opposite mean, because one of the


hon. Gentleman's back benchers was asking that we should be importing more from that part of the world.

Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend aware that the £5 million cut affects milk to be given to children in school—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."]—because that costs 3s. 4d. a gallon, and if it goes into the pool the return will be only 1s. 6d? There is disquiet among the farmers in my constituency at the loss. Is it really worth while doing it when the farmers will be collecting it again under the Annual Price Review if they get their way?

Mr. Hoy: The price this year is 3s. 3½d. a gallon.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will initiate discussions with dairy farmers, with a view to arranging for the processing of surplus milk, so that it may be made available to overseas countries to strengthen their nutrition programmes.

Mr. Hoy: It is for the milk marketing boards and the manufacturing industry to determine their arrangements for the manufacture of milk products from milk surplus to liquid needs. The relief organisations can obtain these products and the Government have also included some skim milk powder in its contribution to the World Food Programme.

Mr. Hooley: Would my hon. Friend agree that this would be a very valuable way of contributing overseas aid without any charge on our balance of payments, and that it would go some way to offset the difficulties which I suspect will arise on the abolition of school milk for secondary schools?

Mr. Hoy: On the contrary. As importers of skimmed milk powder, it would be unrealistic to offer it in large quantities, but we are determined to make our contribution, as we did last year.

Farne Islands (Seals)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will announce the result of his consultations with the Natural Environment Research Council and National Trust regarding the cull of seals on the Fame Islands.

Mr. Hoy: I understand that the meeting of scientists which the Natural Environment Research Council is arranging will take place on 20th March. In the light of it we shall consider, in conjunction with the National Trust, what further action should be taken.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does not the Minister consider there has been a quite unnecessary delay in trying to resolve this problem over the cull of seals? In the interests of fishermen, will he use his good offices and the offices of his right hon. Friend to bring this matter forward and ensure that a great deal more urgency is shown?

Mr. Hoy: The delay is not due to the Department. We have to consider with the National Trust and other people who should be represented at the conference. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Fame Islands are the property of the National Trust and we have to have permission, for we have no power to enter the Trust's land, and without its co-operation there is very little we can do.

Administrative Civil Servants (Farms)

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many persons employed in the administrative class of his Department have owned, managed, or been the tenant of, a farm.

Mr. John Mackie: Four officers in the administrative class of this Department share or have shared ownership of a farm. None has managed or been the tenant of a farm.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does not the minute number which the Minister has just given account for the lamentable inaccuracy of the forecasts of agricultural production each year on which the Minister depends for basing his own agricultural policy?

Mr. Mackie: No, Sir. I do not think that ownership, management, or tenancy of a farm has anything to do with administrative ability. If it is of any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, the one-third bias in favour on the political side makes up for it.

Licensing of Bulls (Regulation)

Mr. Baker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for amending the Licensing of Bulls Regulations for England and Wales.

Mr. John Mackie: Proposals are under consideration for certain minor changes such as making Charolais and Luing bulls eligible for beef bull licences and British Dane bulls eligible for dairy bull licences.

Mr. Baker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he get in touch with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to obviate the necessity for re-registering bulls, although, as I understand it, matters are a little easier than they were?

Mr. Mackie: I take note of that point. I know the difficulty.

Potatoes

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what quantities of potatoes have been imported since 1st January, 1968; how this amount compares with imports over the same period in each of the last three years; and what effect these imports have had on remaining home stocks of potatoes.

Mr. Hoy: In January, 1968, 4,175 tons of new potatoes were imported; there were no imports of main crop potatoes. No figures are yet available for February. The corresponding figures for January in 1965, 1966 and 1967 were 1,400, 2,700 and 2,800 tons. Against a total consumption each January of about 400,000 tons of potatoes these imports signify little; and any consequent addition to the stocks of potatoes remaining this year must signify even less.

Sir J. Gilmour: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the increase these figures show underlines the difficult situation of marketing main crop potatoes. the price of which is very low? Will he ask his right hon. Friend in his capacity of Minister of Food to look into the marketing of main crop potatoes as compared with imports, in view of the fact that the wholesale price of imported potatoes is

8d. a 1b., and I bought them in a shop today at ls. a lb., whereas the wholesale price of main crop British potatoes is 2d., and they are selling at 5d?

Mr. Hoy: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman bought imported potatoes at 1s. a 1b. when he could have got home produce at 5d. I can assure him that we are in consultation with the Potato Marketing Board, because we want to sell to the best advantage what our farmers produce.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the present scale of imports of frozen potato chips and new potatoes from the Canary Islands.

Mr. Hoy: Imports of frozen chips during 1967 are estimated at about 8,000 tons from all sources compared with about 5,000 tons in 1966. These imports have occurred because demand has outstripped home production. Two firms, however, have recently announced plans for expanding output.
In recent years imports of new potatoes from the Canary Islands have ranged between 41,000 and 49,000 tons. We expect 1968 imports to lie within that range.

Mr. Hastings: How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile what he has just said about wishing to improve the marketing of potatoes with the figures that he has now quoted for the importation of frozen chips? When there are massive supplies in our clamps, surely that is a first consideration for him? With regard to imports of so-called new potatoes from the Canaries, no doubt he will agree that they are not really new potatoes at all, and, again, if he wishes to improve marketing he had better give more consideration to our home producers.

Mr. Hoy: It is not for me to define and argue about what we are sent, but we take precautions to see that they are new potatoes. If most of our manufacturers have not taken advantage of the market, the hon. Gentleman ought to be grateful that at least two have and are about to establish plants in this country. Ross Foods are about to establish another £175,000 production line at Westwick in Norfolk, and I can also confirm that McCains of Canada are about to build a


£980,000 factory at Scarborough, in the development area, to meet the demand in this country.

Retail Food Prices

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a weekly bulletin of retail food prices, showing the retail price of 40 staple foodstuffs in a major centre of population in each economic planning region of Great Britain.

Mr. Peart: The Cost of Living Advisory Committee is currently examining whether more information on regional prices should be collected and published. In the meantime my right hon. Friends and I are considering the best way of publishing regularly other information on retail food prices.

Mr. Hooley: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's Answer, so far as it goes, may I ask whether he would agree that food prices are critical in our prices and incomes policy? Would he further agree that a lot of vague information is being bandied about in the Press, and that this proposal would give an authoritative central index to which one could make reference?

Mr. Peart: I agree that it is important, in view of the effect of food prices on the prices and incomes policy. I am looking at this.

Mr. Godber: Would the Minister care to have a word with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and suggest to him that, if he took Selective Employment Tax off the distributive trades, he would help alleviate some of the harm that this Government have done in that costs of distribution could be reduced?

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is another matter entirely and is out of order on this Question.

Tractors and Harvesters (Investment Grants)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated number and proportion of claims for investment grants on tractors and self-propelled harvesters under the Agriculture Act, 1967, which he has

referred back to applicants a first time and a second or more times; and whether he will list the main reasons for such references back.

Mr. John Mackie: The information is not available in the detailed form requested but in recent months roughly 30 per cent. of all applications have given rise to some form of inquiry, including those resolved by a telephone call. The main reasons for inquiries appear to be failure by applicants to supply the information requested on the application form, and claims for amounts in excess of manufacturers' recommended prices.

Mr. Hill: Is not this procedure so ridden with paper work that it is misemploying costly extra Ministry staff and, what is worse, preventing farmers who have limited office facilities from getting down to such important work as cost analyses and farm efficiency studies?

Mr. Mackie: I do not agree with that. I have a copy of the form before me. It is a fairly simple one, and it would not take a lot of time or intelligence to fill it in.

Mr. Stodart: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that, far from being a simple form, it is anything but? Will he say what advice is given to farmers as to where the forms can be obtained when they wish to apply for grant? Under the old investment allowance, it was simple, but many farmers now do not know where to apply for forms?

Mr. Mackie: As a member of the farming industry, I have never found it difficult to discover where a form can be obtained which will bring me in some money. We have made it clear where these forms are to be obtained. If any hon. Gentleman can point out to me a question on the form which is difficult to answer, I will be glad to help him.

Home-produced Beef and Veal

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress toward the estimated increase of 125,000 tons of home-produced beef and veal by 1970 has taken place in each convenient half year since September, 1965.

Mr. Hoy: With permission I will publish the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
They show an increase over the corresponding six months of 1965–66 in each of half-years to March and September, 1976.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the figures of calf-slaughterings over the last three years, where there has been a steep decline? Until that trend is reversed, can the Minister feel that he is likely to get what he wants?

Mr. Hoy: There are those figures, but I have arranged for the figures that the hon. Gentleman wants to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Is the Minister not aware that food imports went up again last year and that this total figure needs actually to be reduced?

Mr. Hoy: Yes. We should like greater production to come from our own farms, and that is what the policy is directed to.

Following is the information:


United Kingdom Production of Beef and Veal (including meat equivalent of exported cattle and calves)


Six months

('000 tons)


October, 1965-March, 1966
…
451


April, 1966-September, 1966
…
407


October, 1966-March, 1967
…
469


April, 1967-September, 1967
…
466

Agriculture (Material Inputs and Plant and Machinery)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the increase in total cost of such inputs as fertilisers, seeds, feedingstuffs and fuel, and increased investment in machinery at constant prices above 1964–65 and its percentage increase above 1964–65.

Mr. John Mackie: In terms of constant prices the total cost of material inputs used by agriculture increased by £21 million between 1964–65 and 1966–67, or about 2 per cent., and new gross investment in plant and machinery was £77 million in 1965 and 1½ per cent. less at £76 million in 1967.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the increasing costs for the industry are causing the gravest anxiety, and that is one of the reasons why it has so little confidence in this Government?

Mr. Mackie: No, Sir.

Price Increases (Notifications)

Mr. Gardner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many price increases since devaluation have been notified to, and examined by, his Department under the early warning system; how many of the proposed increases were withdrawn as a result of discussions with the firms concerned; and how many have been referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Peart: Between 18th November, 1967, and 23rd February, 1968, 147 proposals for price increases have been notified to my Department under the early warning system; of these 59 are attributable wholly or mainly to devaluation; this was an additional factor in a further 37 cases. Ninety-two have been accepted as notified, 16 have been modified after discussion, and 7 rejected or withdrawn. The remainder are still being examined. Nine notifications, all relating to bread flour, were referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Gardner: While welcoming what my right hon. Friend has said, may I ask whether he will accept that the time has come for him to get tough over food prices? While he is about it, would he also care to settle the argument between the Consumer Council and the Grocer? Which is right?

Mr. Peart: I think that the Consumer Council is right in this case. On the wider aspects of policy, we are trying to make a success of our prices and incomes policy by having our constant watch and early warning arrangements. This is working.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how often he brings the Prime Minister up to date on these price increases, bearing in mind what the Prime Minister said on 19th November about the £ in people's pockets?

Mr. Peart: I am always in touch with my right hon. Friend.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of his review of the fishing industry.

Mr. Hoy: Our study of the outcome of the review is proceeding and we have promised a statement as soon as possible. I hope that it will be very soon.

Mr. Wall: Will the Minister bear in mind that the fishing industry is undergoing difficult conditions and its uncertainty is. increased from failure to know how the Government will react to the review? Will he ensure that the review recommendations will be reported to the House and debated?

Mr. Hoy: I cannot say anything about a debate, but there will be a report. We will speed it up as much as possible.

Mr. James Johnson: Is there any possibility of having the statement before the annual debate?

Mr. Hoy: There is always a dispute about whether the debate should take place on the Orders or later on the statement when we normally discuss the fishing industry as a whole. I can certainly give the assurance that it will come before then.

Land Settlement Association

Mr. David Mitchell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has now completed his consideration of the Report of the Wise Committee on the future of the Land Settlement Association; and whether he will now make a statement.

Mr. Peart: The recommendations made in the second Wise Report raise many important questions for the future both of the L.S.A. and of individual tenants. I am considering carefully the varied views which have been expressed about the Committee's proposals and will make a statement as soon as I can.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that he has had this report for eight months already and continuing delay is very unsettling, particularly at Andover where land settlement tenants are anxious to make future plans?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that there is a second part to the Report, which I have not had for that length of time. I must have discussions, but I will make an announcement as soon as I can.

Mr. Godber: Is the Minister aware that that reply is disappointing, in that some of us had understood that he was to have made a statement before now? The tenants on these smallholdings are gravely concerned, particularly in those estates where they understand that the Wise Committee reports that they should wind up. They must be told something so that they can plan for the future.

Mr. Peart: I am aware that many people are anxious about a decision and what that decision will be. I will certainly try to speed it up.

Agricultural Subsidies

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider limiting agricultural subsidies to farms in the development areas.

Mr. Peart: The aim of the policy pursued by the Government under the 1947 and 1957 Agriculture Acts is to promote and maintain a stable and efficient agricultural industry throughout the whole country, and I do not think it would be in the national interest to change the basis of that policy. Nevertheless, I recognise that some sectors of farming face special difficulties—in particular, small farms and hill and upland farms. There are special schemes of assistance designed to deal with these difficulties which are not found only in development areas.

Mr. Jeger: While welcoming that reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will communicate it to the Ministry of Technology, which will be surprised to learn that subsidies and assistance can be given to industry nationally without geographical boundaries?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the point made. I will certainly convey it.

Herring (Drift Netting)

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received to ban drift netting for herring off the north-east coast of England; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Hoy: I am tomorrow receiving a deputation of fishermen from the northeast coast to discuss a proposal that all


fishing for herring should be banned in the outer six-mile belt.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that drift netting for herring does not disturb the herring on the bottom of the sea, nor does it interfere with the spawning shoals? It would be a serious thing for the supplies of herring to this country if the drift net fishermen were penalised for what seems more likely to be the result of depredations by foreign trawlers.

Mr. Hoy: I should prefer not to comment until I have received this deputation. I know that there would be certain repercussions from other parts of the United Kingdom if this proposal were carried out. I am bound to convey any decision to every part of the United Kingdom; not to this one area.

Beef Cattle, Wales (Testing Station)

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to establish a testing station for beef cattle in Wales.

Mr. Hoy: None, Sir. But I understand that the Beef Recording Association has had exploratory talks with various organisations about possible arrangements for the performance testing of Welsh Black Cattle, provided that adequate support is forthcoming from Welsh Black cattle breeders.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that there will be adequate support for that and that his statement will be welcomed in Wales?

Livestock Exports, Wales

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to increase the livestock exports from Wales.

Mr. Hoy: The initiative in promoting livestock exports rests with the industry. The Government's export services are, of course, available to exporters in Wales on the same basis as to exporters elsewhere.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread resentment in Wales that our livestock export industry has not

been sufficiently encouraged by the Government? There is a feeling that it has been discriminated against.

Mr. Hoy: I am sorry that there should be that feeling, because it is quite untrue. Indeed, we are willing to help anybody who is willing to take on the export market. If the hon. Gentleman feels that any section has been neglected in this respect concerning assistance, I can assure him that the President of the Board of Trade and my Department will be delighted to render that assistance.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Concerning the export of livestock from Wales, can the Minister say what steps his veterinary service is taking to safeguard the inspection of animals which enter the store market from Eire?

Mr. Hoy: I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman means by that, because any imported cattle, from wherever they come, have to be inspected. The question that was dealt with here was about the export of Welsh Blacks to other countries. I was saying that we would be prepared to render whatever assistance we could and I invited the hon. Gentleman, if he has any complaints, to send them either to the Board of Trade or to my Department and we would consider them.

Mr. William Edwards: Is the Minister aware that most of the farmers in my constituency earn their livelihood by exporting cattle to England? Will my hon. Friend make sure that in future there will be no artificial barriers preventing them exporting to England?

Mr. Hoy: I fully appreciate that the Welsh people are delighted to do business with the English. I can also say that my own country is delighted to do the same.

BRISTOL SIDDELEY ENGINES LTD. (REPORT)

3.31 p.m.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Today the report of the Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Roy Wilson into the pricing of certain contracts made with Bristol Siddeley Engines, Ltd., is being published. The House will


want to study the Report very carefully and, no doubt, to debate it. The Government accept the general conclusions reached. I will quote those which deal with the more important issues.
First: on the excessive prices for engine overhauls for the years 1959–63, the Report of the Inquiry states:
During the period under review Bristol Siddeley Engines budgeted for, and achieved, exorbitant profits on their overhaul contracts with the Department. The approximate extent of the profitability of these contracts was, at the time, known to the company at all levels of management. We do not accept that the overcharging has been justified by any of the arguments put forward by the company".
The conclusions of the Report go on to state:
In relation to the overhaul contracts the conduct of the company's estimating and price-negotiating representatives amounted to intentional misrepresentation, by which the Department's representatives were deceived".
Second: a factor which contributed to the excessive profits was double charging by the company for certain work and the Inquiry investigated this aspect in great detail. On this the Report has said:
It was not just a simple matter of Bristol Siddeley Engines, Ltd. sending in duplicate bills for the same items: what happened was that they sent in individual bills for the repair of spare parts and that some of the amounts charged in those bills were for work which had already been taken into account in fixing the composite price which had been agreed for the overhaul of an engine as a whole.
It concluded:
The fact that in relation to a number of sub-assemblies there was double charging at Coventry as between the overhaul contracts and the repair of spares contracts was known to Bristol Siddeley's estimating staff from about the dates when in each case it first occurred, and to certain of their superiors at later dates.
Third: the Report examines in detail the part played by Ministry staff who were deceived by the company and considers whether the staff concerned could have prevented this deception. It has concluded:
The main reason why the Department failed to prevent excessive profits from being made on the overhaul contracts was that the estimates of man hours made and accepted by the Directorate of Technical Costs were too high; and in this respect the Directorate of Technical Costs fell seriously below a reasonable standard of competence.
I should inform the House that this lapse was the subject of a full Depart-

mental enquiry in 1966 carried out in accordance with standard Civil Service procedures, and appropriate action was taken at that time with the officers concerned.
Fourth: on organisational matters the Inquiry recognised that these events took place several years ago at about the same time as those of the Ferranti case and that, in the intervening years, improvements have been made in the organisation and staffing of those areas of the Department which were involved. The conclusion of the Report on this aspect states:
There was in general a lack of adequate system and co-ordination as between the various Directorates of the Department which were concerned in one way or another with the overhaul contracts. We note that the Department have already introduced some measures to deal with this problem, and that they are keeping it under constant review".
Fifth: the Inquiry also dealt with repair of spares contracts for 1959 to 1964. It is fair to say that in the body of its Report the Inquiry states that the knowledge of these profits within the company was not so precise as in the case of the overhaul contracts, nor was the company's conduct in securing these profits so deliberate. Its main conclusion was:
The profits on the repair of spares contracts were in all the circumstances excessive. They should be reviewed jointly by the Department and the Company.
Sixth: the House will recall that in February, 1967, after long negotiations, Bristol Siddeley Engines, Ltd. agreed to refund a sum of £3·96 million in respect of excessive profits made on the engine overhaul contracts. The Report says:
In considering whether this settlement was a good one or a bad one it is essential to bear in mind that negotiations would in all probability have taken a very different shape if the Department had been aware of all the facts which we have discovered in the course of our inquiry.
It further says:
In all the circumstances we do not think that the amount for which the Department agreed to settle can reasonably be criticised.
Seventh: in addition the Report deals with a number of other subjects. The question of Press statements over the Easter weekend of 1967 was examined and has been reported in sufficient detail to enable the Inquiry to be satisfied that no impropriety was involved.
Eighth: an important conclusion of the Inquiry reads as follows:
Greater emphasis should in future be placed on the duty of contractors to quote fair and reasonable prices.
I have already taken action to draw this to their attention.
Ninth: the Inquiry also came to the conclusion that:
The Department will be at a serious disadvantage in negotiating fixed prices so long as 'equality of information ' is withheld.
On this point I would refer to the statement made on Monday by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on the arrangements to secure equality of information and post-costing.
The House will be aware that in October, 1966, long after the occurrence of the events with which we are concerned, the business of Bristol Siddeley Engines, Ltd. was acquired by Rolls Royce Limited who have always enjoyed an excellent world-wide reputation. The Report indicates in clear terms that Rolls Royce was in no way implicated in these events, but it is clear that further consideration must be given to the situation; involving as it does Rolls Royce, as the new owner of B.S.E.L., and the Government; and to all the financial issues raised by the Report, including the engine overhaul contracts and the repair of spares contracts, in relation to the general high level of profit achieved by Bristol Siddeley Engines, Ltd. on Government contracts as a whole for 1959–63.
The Government not only accept the conclusions of the Wilson Inquiry, they also accept the seven recommendations of the Second Special Report of the Public Accounts Committee, with only one reservation. This relates to the basis for settling the appropriate size of the refund if any similar case should arise. Since the P.A.C. report was made, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced on Monday, it has been agreed with industry that a Review Board should be set up to deal with this question.
The House will wish to consider carefully the grave implications of the conclusions reached by the Wilson Committee. We for our part shall look sympathetically at any request for an

early debate. At this stage therefore, I do not want to comment beyond saying that the Government must be able to rely upon the word of contractors with whom they deal. However conscientious civil servants or Ministers may be, and however vigilant the Public Accounts Committee, there can be no guarantee that the taxpayers' money will be safeguarded unless contractors themselves accept this as part of their duty to the community. We are dealing with public money. The thousands of contracts, large and small, signed by the Government each year must be negotiated on the basis of confidence on both sides.
Finally, I should like to express my appreciation of the great care and expert attention which Sir Roy Wilson and his colleagues, Sir Leslie Robinson and Mr. C. J. M. Bennett, have devoted to this task.

Mr. Corfield: Since the Minister's statement and his quotations from the Report contain very grave allegations, which are bound to reflect on individuals as well as upon the firm, I would very strongly submit that the right course for the House is to study the Report and to take advantage of his suggestion about debating it later. I feel very strongly that until we have seen the Report, as he has and no one else has, it would be unfair to embark on a debate.

Mr. Benn: The matter of a debate is, of course, for the Leader of the House and the usual channels, but I thought it right to say that the Government would expect that the House would wish a debate and that we would want to have it as soon as possible.

Mr. Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as a result of his statement, a very grave situation now exists, and that this House has been seriously misled in that the settlement which was reached was on the basis that, whatever else could have been said about inefficiency, the firm's actions had been inadvertent? This is now exposed, and I would ask whether my right hon. Friend has considered making the papers available to the Director of Public Prosecutions, because this standard cannot be tolerated and we must take some action?

Mr. Benn: As far as the—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. The Minister has made a very grave statement—

Mr. Wilkins: He did not make it: he quoted it.

Mr. Lewis: He has the advantage of the House, since we have not seen the Report. I have just been to the Vote Office to try to get a copy of the Report. Not only is it not available, but I am told there is no indication as to when it will be available, [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Therefore I should like to ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is possible to put questions for answer on this without the Report being available?

Mr. Speaker: It has been possible for a long time for hon. Members to put questions, even if they were not in possession of information.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Sir Ian Orr-Ewing rose—

Mr. Benn: May I answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), Mr. Speaker? In fact, the Report is to be available this afternoon in the Vote Office, but it was not made available to anyone—to the Press or anyone else—in advance of my statement, for reasons which I think will be obvious to the House. To answer my hon. Friend—the Attorney-General, after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, has decided that the evidence which has been disclosed does not justify proceedings.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that successive Governments have been anxious to strengthen the Technical Costings Department of his Ministry and that this is wholly in the interests of the tax payers? I hope that it will continue. He has frequently mentioned his desire to create a partnership between his Ministry and the aircraft industry. Now that the Ferranti case is out of the way—I hope that in due course this case will also be debated—will he try to build bridges of understanding and trust with industry, because, in the interests of our country, we wish to see trust on both sides? Otherwise, we shall not get the relationship between industry and Government which is essential to the prosperity of our country.

Mr. Benn: I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned with this matter, but he will be aware of the dates on which these events occurred and also that the basis of trust must be that Governments can trust the word of contractors with whom they deal. Nothing that I have said today in any way invalidates the desire of the Government to establish sound relations with the firms with which we deal. The very long negotiations which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has had with industry about equality of information and post-costing indicate the great anxiety which we have had to see that these matters were handled as far as possible by agreement. But these are separate issues from the matters in the Wilson Committee's Report, to which I have referred.

Mr. Sheldon: is my right hon. Friend aware that the scandalous state of affairs which has existed between the Department and the aviation industry must now finally be settled once and for all, and that, despite the statement of the Chief Secretary about post-costing and the way in which we will ensure that we get value for money, no certainty will be possible until we get the Department's men into the factories concerned and can learn from the experience both of the firms and of his Department?

Mr. Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend's intention in putting that question. In fact, the Wilson Committee has looked at the recommendations of the Lang Committee, which reported following the Ferranti case, and is satisfied that all those which were practicable have already been implemented. At the same time, there has been a strengthening of the appropriate staff in the Department and there is now better co-ordination. The Public Accounts Committee recommendations are, with the one reservation which I mentioned, being implemented. I must tell the House, however, that even with all these things and equality of information it is not possible to guarantee that this sort of thing will not recur unless the figures of man-hours worked by the company are those actually worked and not, as in this case, figures greatly in excess of those actually worked on the job.

Sir C. Osborne: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's very serious statement


and the reflection upon the directors of the company concerned—although he said that it would not cause the Attorney-General to pass the papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions—has this statement been made available to the directors of the company? If so, what comment have they to make on it, and could it be made available to the House?

Mr. Benn: I should correct the hon. Gentleman. If he looks carefully, he will see that the statement which I made, on all material points, was direct quotation from the Wilson Committee's Report. I made a general comment at the end, but my statement was built around the final conclusions of the Report. My statement was not, of course, made available outside the House, but an opportunity has been created at about this time to inform the company about the statement. It will receive the Report at the same time.

Mr. Murray: Could this question of the Director of Public Prosecutions being put in the picture be considered again, because these are grave allegations and one feels that those concerned will get away with them nevertheless? Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the only answer to the scandal of the aircraft industry over the past decade is public ownership?

Mr. Benn: The question of prosecution is not, of course, a matter for me, and I have said that the Attorney-General has already consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions. The inquiries are not complete on some of these matters, as the House knows, and I think that I should say no more about that. I do not believe that the issue of public ownership should be involved in the discussion which we are having on this Report. I should say one thing which I should have mentioned before in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), that although the company was given no advance information, one person has been given the Report already—Sir Reginald Verdon Smith—for a reason which, I think, is known to the House.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, from the quotations he gave, very grave allegations indeed

have been made against certain of the Bristol Siddeley Engines staff? If the advice of the Attorney-General is that this matter should not be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, would the right hon. Gentleman at least consider whether a civil action for damages lies against those responsible? Second, in relation to the Public Accounts Committee, in view of the fact that, in this matter, it has obviously played the role of a watchdog which cannot bark until after the burglar has been arrested, would he consider recommending to the Cabinet that its role should be widened so that these matters can be considered earlier?

Mr. Benn: To take the last point first, it would be inappropriate for me to recommend to the Public Accounts Committee what action it wishes to take in the light of the Wilson Committee's Report. Therefore, I should say nothing about it. On the hon. Member's point about the Director of Public Prosecutions, I am afraid that he cannot have heard me aright. The case has been referred—

Mr. Lubbock: I mentioned a civil action.

Mr. Benn: Yes, but the Director of Public Prosecutions would not be involved in the civil action. He has been consulted by the Attorney-General.
As far as the possible civil action is concerned, there is a number of considerations here which require special attention, one of which, of course, is the very nature of the inquiry itself. As in the Lang case, I believe that the same practice was followed and there was an agreement as to the way by which this inquiry should be conducted in regard to those who might give evidence. When the hon. Gentleman reads the Report he will see that no names are mentioned in it, although the positions occupied by certain people are referred to by the positions they occupied. The evidence will not be published and all these considerations, therefore, lead to rather more complexities than might appear at first sight.

Mr. Heffer: Might I again appeal to my right hon. Friend to reconsider the question of some legal action being taken? We have been told this afternoon that Ministry officials were deliberately deceived. Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the people of this country believe


that there is a double standard, one for the local thief around the corner and one for somebody involved in large private enterprise, our whole legal system will be regarded by the people with cynicism?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend really should address remarks of that kind to the Attorney-General. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to answer him, except to say that the statement which I made and the answer which I gave to the question about a prosecution indicate that these considerations have been very carefully looked into.

Mr. Crowder: Is there any opportunity for these men to put forward a defence to these allegations; that is, if there is to be no prosecution despite the allegations?

Mr. Benn: The position is that this is a published Report, published by command of this House—and, on a published Report, it is open to people to make such statements as they think right. What action the Public Accounts Committee will take following the Report, which reaches conclusions which are different from the conclusions it reached—particularly on the extent of knowledge of upper management as to what was happening—may provide another opportunity.

Mr. Dalyell: How and when did it first come to light that the number of man-hours worked was significantly less than the company claimed?

Mr. Benn: When my hon. Friend comes to read the Report he will find that in one of the passages—I am not sure that 1 would be able to identify it immediately—the number of man-hours put in by the company as having actually been worked, and accepted as having been worked, was not at all in relationship to the hours that had been worked.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman rightly absolved Rolls Royce from any connection with this matter. However, as this great concern is involved in large sums abroad on export orders on behalf of this country, can he say if Rolls Royce were indemnified against any future claims when it acquired the Bristol Siddeley Company?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has raised a matter which Rolls Royce will, no doubt, wish to consider. As I understand it, Rolls Royce was aware that some

claim lay against Bristol Siddeley at the time of acquisition; but it was no more aware at that time of the nature of the situation revealed by the Wilson Committee, nor was it aware of information of a kind that might have enabled it to reach a decision on this. However, this is a matter for Rolls Royce and not for me.

Mr. Whitaker: Since the sum offered to be repaid by the company was found by the Wilson Committee to be justified in the light of the information which the Ministry had previously, but before it was aware of the deliberate misrepresentation, how much money does this company now owe the Government?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend will, I think, have noted from what I said about the future that it is clear that further consideration must be given to the situation involving Rolls Royce, as the new owners of Bristol Siddeley, and the Government, and to all the financial issues raised by the Report. I suggest that it would be best to leave it like that, remembering that there are further inquiries now in progress on the subject of the repair of spares.

Mr. Hastings: Whatever the facts in this matter—[Interruption.]—will the right hon. Gentleman, as the sponsoring Minister for this industry, do his best to ensure that his hon. Friends do not use this as yet one more stick with which to belabour the aircraft industry as a whole, particularly in view of the foreign earnings for which this industry is at present responsible?

Mr. Benn: In the light of the findings of the tribunal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—the hon. Gentleman used the phrase "whatever the facts in this matter"; there have been these allegations—I have reported to the House the findings of the tribunal in the matter. The other considerations which the hon. Gentleman has in mind do not arise on the Report itself, although I made a special point in my statement of indicating that Rolls Royce was in no way implicated and that its worldwide reputation was well understood and accepted.

Mr. Mendelson: Following my right Friend's reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker), does he recall that


when the Minister of State made a statement to the House about the original settlement, he assured hon. Members that a fair agreement had been reached? In the light of the new information, will my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that the Government will make a further claim on the firm or on the new parent of the firm so as to fully make up the losses which the country has incurred? With regard to the problem of a prosecution, will he bear in mind that if an old-age pensioner fails to put down as much as £2 additional earnings beyond the disregards, he is threatened with a criminal prosecution? Is not this the same measure of pressure that should be applied to this firm?

Mr. Benn: To answer the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I have told the House that I think it right that such questions should be put to, and answered by, the Attorney-General. To answer the first point—about the statement made by the Minister of State when the original announcement was made—that statement was, of course, made by him in the light of the information which was available to us at that time. It did not differ in substance from the Public Accounts Committee's Report later. As to the question of further refunds, this is dealt with in the statement which I gave to the House and to which I referred just now in relation to further consideration being given to all the financial implications.

Mr. Brooks: Would my right hon. Friend consider an important and, perhaps, unprecedented aspect of this case; the fact that the Public Accounts Committee has already submitted a report to Parliament which has been debated and which involved drawing evidence from a number of those people against whom certain charges now appear to have been made by the Wilson Committee?
May I ask him whether, when the advice of the Attorney-General was sought, as I understand it was, the possibility that the evidence which was submitted to Parliament via the Public Accounts Committee by members of the Board was considered, and, if so, was it regarded as accurate and reliable and not misleading to the House?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend has now raised a different point. The question of a prosecution in the courts is as I have

described it. The question of whether or not, in the light of the tribunal's findings, the Public Accounts Committee or the House were to conclude that further action was required by them because of any differences that might have been revealed on the evidence submitted would not be for me but for the House. The House may wish to take the advice of its own authorities in the matter.

Mr. Hogg: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman could confirm in principle—I do not want to say anything about the facts until I have read the document—that to give deliberately false evidence to a Select Committee of this House is a contempt of this House?

Mr. Benn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is much more skilled in these matters than I am, but I take it that if the Public Accounts Committee and the House were satisfied, in the light of what has now been revealed, that such a thing had happened, then it would be open to the House to deal with it in its own way. This would be for the House to deal with and not for the Government; and that is why I made no reference to it.

Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, despite this very serious Report, the confidence of Parliament in the British aircraft industry must not be shaken in any way whatever, particularly in view of the statement which he made yesterday showing that public funds are to be increasingly invested in this industry?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend is now on a point which has been raised before. I tried to clarify it, first of all by saying what I did about Rolls Royce and, secondly, by making it clear that the thousands of contracts which are signed by my Department every year must be negotiated on the basis of confidence between the two sides.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 15TH MARCH

The following hon. Members were chosen in the Ballot:

Mr. Gordon Campbell.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis.
Mr. William Molloy.

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clause 1. (AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

4.0 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I beg to move, Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 12, leave out from ' he ' to end of line 13 and insert:
' or one of his parents or grandparents '.

The Chairman: I think that it would be convenient if we were also to discuss Amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 12, leave out ' or '; Amendment No. 8, in line 13, after father ', insert:
' or his mother or his mother's mother or his mother's father or his father's mother '.
and Amendment No. 9, in line 13, at end insert:
' his father's mother, his mother, his mother's father or his mother's mother '.

Mr. Angus Maude: On a point of order, Sir Eric. I would call your attention to the fact that this afternoon we are dealing with a Bill which includes a great many references to the main Act, that of 1962, and today there is apparently a shortage in the Vote Office of copies of that Act. It is almost impossible to understand what some of the Amendments mean unless one can refer to the original Act. I gather that the Vote Office is doing its best to get more copies later today, but would it be possible for Mr. Speaker to make representations that some preparations are made for an event of this kind?

The Chairman: I am much obliged to the hon. Member, and I sympathise with him. I agree that it is very difficult to follow the Bill without reference to the 1962 Act. I was not aware of a shortage of conies of the Act in the Vote Office, but in view of what the lion. Gentleman has said, I will do my best to ensure that every effort is made to obtain additional copies of the 1962

Act; and that they are placed in the Vote Office.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Sir Eric. Could the non-selection of Amendment 2, in page 1, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 2 and add
' subsection (2)(b) is hereby repealed '.
be reconsidered? This is an extremely important Amendment. It seeks to remove what most of us consider to be rather an offensive term in the Bill, and I see no reason why it has not been selected.

The Chairman: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there were very good reasons why that Amendment was not selected.

Mr. Turton: I make it quite clear at once that I appreciate perfectly well that when the Home Secretary was drafting the Bill in a hurry he put in the words
…his father or his father's father…
so keeping it to the patriarchal parent. This was the line adopted in the British Nationality Act, 1948, when we were considering who was or who was not to get British citizenship, but I submit that the present case is entirely different.
In the present case we are dealing with a group of people who want to go home, and "home" to them is this country, whether it was their mother or their father who was born there. Whatever argument may be made as was made yesterday, about pledges that had been given in 1962 or 1963, what is abundantly clear is that the majority of these people have been given a clear and definite pledge by successive British Governments that if their land was taken from them, or if they had to sell their land, they could come home to England. This is particularly true of the European Settlement Board farmers. I therefore ask the Home Secretary to consider whether it would not be fairer to use the words suggested in the Amendment.
Even if we do this, we will still be dividing this group, because in it there are many whose parents and grandparents were not born in the United Kingdom. A great many of them are second generation Kenyans. I therefore fear that there may be difficulties, but it is quite clear that there will be much greater hardship if the Amendment is not


accepted. At a guess, I would say that some 75 per cent. of the people we wish to cover would come under the Bill as it is at present drafted. Probably another 20 per cent. would be covered by this Amendment, because a great many of these U.K. citizens in Kenya come from Service families, their parents having been born, not in the United Kingdom but on Service stations. As I have travelled around Kenya, I have also found a great many English girls married to Australians and New Zealanders. They and their husbands regard the United Kingdom as home but, as the Bill is drafted, they would not be covered.
I speak briefly because we have a lot of business to discuss, but I press on the Home Secretary that this is a reasonable Amendment. It will not involve very many persons, but it will give an even sense of justice to all those people affected by this part of the Clause.

Mr. David Steel: I support the Amendment, which is very similar to Amendments we have tabled and which are discussable with it. Although I do not approve the principle of selection contained in the Bill—and whether or not it is the Government's intention, the effect of the provision is to allow those of the right colour to be admitted to this country—if that principle is to remain at all, there can be no justification for saying that the place of birth of a person's grandfather is more important than the place of birth of his mother, which is what the Bill states.
That is not right in logic. From my knowledge of the European community in Kenya, I believe that in it there will be a good number who through the female line have close connections with this country which may be absent through the father's line. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) therefore has the force of logic and consistency on his side, and I hope that the Government will accept his Amendment.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I, too, support the Amendment, but I must be forgiven if I am prejudiced in favour of Amendment No. 8, which you, Sir Eric, have said can also be discussed. Amendment No. 8

seeks to insert after ' father ' in page 1, line 13,
' or his mother or his mother's mother or his mother's father or his father's mother '.
I submit that the Amendment contains what is only a logical proposition. I cannot see any precedent in British law for a prejudice in favour of the patrilineal as against the matrilineal side. We must bear in mind that many of the people concerned will be coming from societies in which matrilineal predominance is more important, and that fact should, if anything, tend more favourably to this consideration—

Mr. R. T. Paget: Is my hon. Friend referring to America?

Mrs. Jeger: I must confess to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that I had not particularly in mind the wishes of the Asian population of America who might want to come to this country.
I urge on the Government that this is an absurd prejudice. Why should it matter more who one's grandfather is than who one's mother is? It is easier to know who one's mother is than to know who one's grandfather is. If there is any doubt in the minds of hon. Members as to their lineage, it is easier for them to trace their mother's lineage than their grandfather's. That applies the world over. If the Clause stays unamended it will create grave injustice. I am particularly concerned about women who have been divorced, about unmarried mothers and about children who are unsure of their lineage back to their grandparent-hood. All sorts of complicated questions of custody and guardianship are involved.
I had the honour, successfully, to bring before the House a British Nationality Act in 1965. It was particularly concerned with the status of alien women married to persons of certain denominations, and I tried to bring forward the complicated problem of the nationality of married women. The present Bill emphasises a great deal of prejudice in status against married women. I had the honour to be the United Kingdom delegate to the Status of Women Commission of the United Nations in 1967. We drew up a draft declaration on elimination of discrimination against women in human rights. This Government have signed that


declaration. I therefore find it most extraordinary that this Clause seems to be a direct contradiction of Article 5 of the Declaration which says:
Women shall have the same rights as men to acquire, change or retain their nationality. Marriage to an alien shall not automatically affect the nationality of the wife either by rendering her stateless or by forcing on her the nationality of her husband.
That may not be thought strictly relevant to this Amendment, but the provision must affect the issue of a woman who marries in these circumstances. It is quite intolerable, particularly in this Year of Human Rights, that this House of Commons should say that it matters more who one's grandfather is than who one's grandmother is. We are proposing to give special rights to people who happen to have a white grandfather but not a white mother. I am prepared to be told that there is some esoteric reason for this but it seems an extraordinary distinction. Unless I am strongly persuaded that my right hon. Friend has not some inexplicable prejudice against his grandmother I shall feel completely dissatisfied with this Clause. But I know that he is a logical and a kindly man and I am sure that he loves both his grandmothers. I therefore hope he will adopt a grandmotherly affectionate attitude towards this Amendment.

4.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): The Government have listened with careful attention to the representations made on this point. If I have the opportunity shortly, I will indicate to the Committee what I think may well be the best explicit manner in which this can be dealt with. Before I reach that point I should like to indicate, because I think it puts the matter in proper context, the kind of consideration which has been in our minds in putting forward the Bill in the form in which it is at present before the Committee.
The effect of these Amendments in one form or another is to provide that a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies with a United Kingdom passport should be exempt from the extended operation of the control if he is connected with the United Kingdom by female ancestry. The Bill as drafted provides for exemption based only on male ancestry. Before the Committee

comes to a conclusion on this point, it will want to recognise clearly what is the scope of the matter at stake.
The object of this Clause is to provide that the exemptions from control enjoyed under the 1962 Act by citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies holding United Kingdom passports shall extend only to such persons as have, or whose fathers or paternal grandfathers had, specific connections with the United Kingdom. So we start with the comparatively narrow base of citizens holding United Kingdom passports. The Committee will recognise that in most cases the ancestral connection with the United Kingdom between such people and this country will be in the vast majority of cases through the paternal line.

Mrs. Jeger: Why?

The Solicitor-General: Well, this is regarded as one of the facts of the matter.

Mrs. Jeger: It simply is not good enough to tell the House that this is one of the facts of the matter. Cannot we have some information on which my right hon. and learned Friend bases this extraordinary conclusion?

The Solicitor-General: I am not in a position to give to my hon. Friend or to the Committee a statistical answer to the question which is now put to me. I invite the Committee to draw the inference—which is not conclusive to the argument—that in most cases where someone in this way is himself holding a United Kingdom passport or a passport for a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies it is a reasonable inference—I do not put it higher than that—that in most cases the connection with this country will be through the paternal line, through the father.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Can the Solicitor-General explain the situation arising in a former German colony in East Africa when an English woman married a man of German descent who retained German citizenship because of the events of the 1914–18 war, but retained British citizenship?

The Solicitor-General: I should think a child of that line would be unlikely to


be the holder of a United Kingdom and Colonies passport. This is the kind of practical factor which I invite the Committee to conclude will normally operate.
The child of such a union as that to which my hon. Friend has referred would, in my view, be likely to have the passport of the father's nationality and citizenship.

Sir Douglas Glover: Surely, the hon. and learned Gentleman does not have the story right. Take a practical case. Before the 1914–18 war, Tanganyika was a German colony. All the people in that country would therefore have German passports. After the First World War, it became a British colony and, therefore, the people of that colony then got British passports. The grandfathers of applicants, therefore, were paternal not to this country, but to Germany.

The Solicitor-General: It is the nationality of the child which decides whether he comes within the provisions of the Bill. Under the scheme of the Bill, an applicant is someone who holds a passport of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: Mr. Peter Tapsell(Horncastle)rose—

The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I have pursued that matter sufficiently. In saying that, what I put to the Committee is that in our belief, in most cases, a person who is possessed of a United Kingdom passport will have his connection with this country through the father. If it is contested, that is the matter in issue. [Interruption.]
The case which hon. Members have in mind is, presumably, that of a child born overseas, the mother being a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and the father being an alien or Commonwealth citizen. The child would probably acquire the nationality of the country of birth or the father's nationality, if they were not the same, or both.
The point which was in our mind when the Bill took its original shape was that under British law, in the normal case, one has regard as a matter of law to the father of any subject whose citizenship is in question. The effect of the British Nationality Act is that any person who

was, or is deemed to have been, a British subject immediately before 1st January, 1949, became on that date a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and so remained a British subject if at the time of his birth his father was a British subject. Under the British Nationality Act, therefore, as a matter of law and practice one goes straight to find who was the father of the person in question. Those were the considerations which were in our minds.

Mrs. Jeger: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry, no. I have dealt as fully as I can with what we thought were the appropriate inferences to draw from the facts. I have indicated that as a matter of law, if one was concerned with the issue of nationality purely and simply, there would be a great deal to be said in favour of adhering to the matter of paternal connection.
I appreciate, however—and this was the point which the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) brought home to us—that this is not in simple terms a matter of nationality as such. It is a matter fundamentally of connection with the United Kingdom. We are conscious of the undesirability, or what could be argued to be the undesirability, in that wider context of the kind of differentiation which the Bill in its original form involved.
The disposition of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, if this is agreeable to the Committee, is to accept the terms of Amendment No. 5, which appears in the name of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton and which is regarded as the most satisfactory of the group of Amendments.

Mr. J. Grimond: The Solicitor-General could have saved the Committee not only a great deal of time, but a great deal of bewilderment, had he said at the outset that he would accept the Amendment. If the rest of the Bill is to be conducted by excursions into what the Home Office have dreamt up overnight about facts of which they know nothing, we are likely to be here for two or three days. However, we are grateful to the hon. and


learned Gentleman—although I leave it to the mover of the Amendment to say so—for accepting it.
In the light of what has emerged about the lack of knowledge in the Home Office concerning the situation, I should like to know what inquiries the Department has made about whether the proposed conditions are workable and how the truth will be checked of statements concerning people's parents and grandparents. Presumably, that is the sort of thing which is to be investigated by the two itinerant barristers. If that causes the difficulty which it obviously causes within the highly skilled Government, it will result in the greatest difficulty in Kenya and other places.
I hope that without going down too many byways the Solicitor-General will give a word of reassurance that he is certain that this matter can be fairly and expeditiously dealt with and will give an idea of how statements will be checked and examined and what evidence will be accepted.

Mr. Frank Hooley: The Government's intention to accept the Amendment makes the Clause, in a sense, even more repulsive, because while it makes clear that every effort will be made to accommodate people who are of European parentage in Kenya—in short, those who are white—there does not appear to be any evidence that similar concessions will be made to those who are brown. This is a concession in the racist sense, in the sense to which I and many of my hon. Friends object fundamentally to the Bill. It does not improve what is now before the Committee.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I would like, first, as one of the sponsors of the Amendment, to thank the Solicitor-General and, secondly, to say that it does not carry the implications that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) suggested. It is a genuine multi-racial Amendment which will have multi-racial beneficiaries.
Thirdly, I should like to add a postscript in support of what was said by my right hon. Friend who sits on the bench below me. [Interruption.] I refer, of course, to the right hon. Member the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), and I use the word "below"

in a strictly geographical sense. He cannot have been the only member of the Committee who was a little disturbed at the Solicitor-General's reference to the facts when the hon. and learned Gentleman said, "These are considered to be the facts" and gave no further substantiation.
While it is true that in the House of Commons we do not expect quite the strict proof of fact that we require in the courts, it is a little disturbing to think that quite so much ignorance is apparent concerning the factual situation in regard to these fundamental matters. It is another sign of the difficulties of introducing legislation on these complex and difficult matters with the haste with which the Bill has been brought forward. I therefore echo what was said by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, hoping that the Government will be able to cope with the problems and that they have made a proper factual prognosis of the logistics involved in these questions.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Henig: I support the reservation entered by my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. Hooley). Quite apart from the question whether acceptance of Amendment No. 5 makes the Bill more racialist, in a sense, more biased towards Europeans and against Asians and Africans who may happen to hold British passports, there is another consideration. When someone with a United Kingdom passport wishes to enter this country, it is profoundly distasteful to make one of the qualifications, perhaps the chief qualification, on which he may or may not come, who happened to be one of his four grandparents. In my view, the true qualification ought to depend on the person himself and on his need.
I make a second point with reference to my right hon. Friend's acceptance of the Amendment. Since it appears, from what we are saying, that nationality, this mystical characteristic which comes from race, can come from any one of four people, it seems possible—I put it no higher—that a person given the right to enter under the amended Clause could have a claim to four different nationalities. Perhaps my right hon. Friend


will confirm or deny that now, by accepting the Amendment, the Government are agreeing to the proposition that someone who has a claim to four nationalities will be allowed to enter this country while someone who has a claim only to British nationality and none other must still be excluded.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 14, at end insert ' Commonwealth or '.

The Chairman: I suggest, that the Committee might conveniently consider at the same time the following two Amendments: Amendment No. 11, in page 1, line, 15, at end insert ' Commonwealth or '.
Amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 15, at end insert or a British colonial territory '.

Mr. Thorpe: Amendment No. 11 is a wide-ranging Amendment with wide-ranging effects. I hope that it will enable the Commitee to have a wide-ranging debate, enabling the Government to deal with certain questions which were not dealt with yesterday, particularly certain questions which they undertook to deal with but which were not dealt with by the Minister who wound up last night.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General will correct me if I am wrong, but, as I see it, in order to be excluded from the effect of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, it was not sufficient merely to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; one had to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies holding a United Kingdom passport which was either issued within the United Kingdom or abroad by officers on behalf of the United Kingdom. If that is so, what we are doing here is still further to restrict the category of those who may be allowed to enter this country without being affected by the operation of either the Commonwealth Immigrants Act or this Bill.
The effect of the Amendment would be that Commonwealth parentage would give a sufficient claim to facilitate free entry. I appreciate that this could lead to an enormous number of persons being

covered, and I shall deal with that point later. The first question, which I ask rhetorically, is: what was the effect of the 1963 Kenya Constitution? If there was one person who did not know what the effect was, it was the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). I took part in the Second Reading debate on the Kenya Independence Bill in November, 1963. I asked, first, the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, then the hon. Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. Hornby), what would be the position in future regarding those persons who would not opt for Kenya citizenship but who would then have United Kingdom passports. Would they come under the operation of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, or would they have free entry? He said that it was a complicated question and he would deal with it later, as the Minister did when my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) raised the matter yesterday, saying that he did not wish to be interrupted. The answer was conspicuous by its absence yesterday, too. We knew the trouble. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department had his prepared peroration and he was not willing to depart from it.
Because I did not receive an answer from the Under-Secretary of State, I asked the same question of the right hon. Member for Streatham at the end of the debate—what about persons holding United Kingdom passports? The right hon. Gentleman, with great honesty, said:
I should like notice of that question.…
That was a great revelation from the Minister in charge of the Bill on Second Reading. He went on:
…but, with reservations lest I make a mistake "—
that temporary acceptance of mortality is, I think, endearing�ž
… I would think, once they have acquired a Commonwealth citizenship and have given up their United Kingdom citizenship, they would be treated as citizens of the Commonwealth countries to which they belong.
Quite correct.
" But they may for a period still have United Kingdom citizenship before they opt for Commonwealth citizenship. That is the the point I had in mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 1394.]
The right hon. Gentleman still did not say what the effect was, but anyone who


looked at the Kenya Independence Act knew that the effect was quite simple. There was no question of a loophole. There may have been a noose into which the right hon. Member for Streatham has put his head, a singularly appropriate fate for him to meet. A new situation arose after 1963. There was no Colonial Government in Kenya. There was, therefore, no Colonial Government which could give to these people a United Kingdom and Colonies passport issued by a Colonial Government. There was only one category left, and that was a United Kingdom passport issued by the United Kingdom. Government of this country by their High Commissioner in Nairobi, Entebbe, Kampala, or wherever it might be.
Let us, therefore, be under no illusion. The persons whom it is sought to exclude and to whom this debate is directed are persons who are full British subjects with, at present, a British passport which is no different in any material particular from the passport which any right hon. or hon. Member holds. It is necessary to remember that important point.
I do not know what the right hon. Member for Streatham thought he was giving. In fact, he was giving them a full passport. There was no question of a passport which could be withdrawn, no question of some sort of identification card; he was giving a full passport which carried with it all the rights and all the obligations of a British subject. For that reason, there were many persons who deliberately, at the end of the two-year period, did not opt for Kenya citizenship because they could fall back on the fact that they were British and wished so to remain.
One may say that, if they were making their livelihood in Kenya and their roots were there, they should have taken out citizenship. That is an arguable point, and I have much sympathy with it. But the fact remains that we gave to these people a guaranteed right to be British subjects. Rightly or wrongly—and for many of them in the event wrongly—they opted to accept the word of honour of this country. Many of those people are now those who may be denied the right of entry.
Whether he intended it or not, the right hon. Member for Streatham gave

full citizenship to them. In fairness to him I should say that what he thought was, "Well, there is going to be a difficult political situation in Kenya. We do not know what the position of the Europeans will be and we must give them a bolt-hole. We cannot say that it is only for people with white faces. We shall have to include the Asians as well, but they are unlikely to take advantage of it and therefore we are quite safe." For the right hon. Gentleman now to try to make political capital from his own Ministerial failures I find breathtaking.
What happens if certain British subjects in Kenya—and because they are fellow British subjects they might well be claimed by certain hon. Gentlemen to be what I believe is known as kith and kin—are expelled? Suppose they are told that their work permits will not be renewed and they are expelled? No matter what the colour of their skin, they are British subjects. What rights have they as British subjects and what obligation have we? Are they stateless?

Sir John Foster: What the right hon. Gentleman means is United Kingdom citizens. Everybody in the Commonwealth is a British subject—Canadians, Australians and so on.

Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention and I take his point, because "subjects" implies a loyalty to the Crown and not necessarily citizenship—[Interruption.]—even if they live in a republic. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) as well.
What happens if a United Kingdom citizen is expelled from Kenya? What are his rights? We are claiming the right to exclude him unless he comes within the 1,500 quota. Let the Government get this one point quite clear. They will not be able to put in British High Commission personnel in Nairobi to prevent Asians from leaving Kenya unless the British Government say that they are prepared to receive them at the other end. That would be a gross interference with the sovereignty of a free and independent Commonwealth country.
If these United Kingdom citizens leave Kenya, either because they are expelled


or their work permits are not renewed and they cannot make a living, suppose they go to Cairo or Paris. When they are there asked, "Why are you here?" they will reply, "We are in transit to the United Kingdom. We are United Kingdom citizens. Here is our passport". It was issued to them as a result of the legislation which the right hon. Member for Streatham introduced in 1963. Is it suggested that we shall have the loyal co-operation of the immigration officials in Cairo or Paris, that all over the world great staffs will be set up by governments to see that nobody comes in transit towards Britain who, although he has a United Kingdom passport is not to be allowed to come? Of course not.
So what happens? These people will arrive at London airport and be told, "We are very sorry, but although you are United Kingdom citizens you will not be allowed to land, either because you do not have the right grandparents or have not got in on a quota". Where will they be sent to? Will they be sent to France or the U.A.R.? Is it suggested that they will be sent back to Kenya where they will be welcomed with open arms, or are they stateless? If they are stateless, that will present all sorts of problems of international law. But if they are United Kingdom citizens holding a devalued British passport where will they be put? Shall we have refugee camps around the airports? I can well understand that the Minister was not prepared to deal with that point yesterday when challenged.

Mr. Ben Whitaker: Would not the right hon. Gentleman advise these people to go straight to Ireland, so that they can enter this country without any let or hindrance through Liverpool and all the other ports?

Mr. Thorpe: I was not anxious to give publicity to that. When the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was introduced in 1962 I asked the then Home Secretary what was the position of people who came from Ireland who were subsequently deported. He said that they would be deported back to Ireland, and I pointed out that there was nothing to stop them coming straight back. He said that the Government would look into that.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Government covered their tracks very well on that. They made an agreement with the Eire Government not to let them into Southern Ireland.

Mr. Thorpe: It is true that there was an agreement, and no doubt the Government will try to make one with the Government of the Republic on this matter, but at present any British citizen with a United Kingdom passport can go into Eire and come straight into this country.
If the legal rights of these people are to be diminished in the sense that they are not allowed into this country, what are their legal obligations? The right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) cited the Joyce case. William Joyce sought to destroy his passport and thereby terminate his allegiance to the Crown. The Courts took the view that that was insufficient and that his allegiance to the Crown still persisted. On that extremely tenuous and, in my view, insupportable basis he was convicted.
What obligations shall we expect from these persons? What protection will they be afforded in other countries where there may be a British ambassador or consul or a United Kingdom High Commission? In short, what is the advantage to them of remaining holders of British passports? What benefits will accrue to them? Or are they in effect not United Kingdom citizens but stateless, with meaningless passports in their hands? Those questions show why I think that the Bill is such an ill-thought out measure.
It is not in order on the Amendment to put forward alternatives, but there are some. If we are dealing with United Kingdom citizens holding United Kingdom passports and living in East Africa, we would wish to give them priority over Asian persons who hold Indian or Pakistani passports coming in under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. But it would not be in order to suggest that now.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will tell us precisely where these people stand. Are they stateless? If not, what rights and obligations have they? What do the


Government expect will happen when some of them come here, as inevitably they will, outside the quota of 1,500? 1 accept that if the Amendment were carried to its logical conclusion it would mean that upwards of 600 million people could claim the right of entry. Therefore, my colleagues and I may not press it to a Division. Perhaps the Amendment could be more happily phrased—and the Government might think about this before Third Reading—to cover persons who are United Kingdom citizens and have no other citizenship. That is what these people are, and that is why they are in a particular category. I hope that the Solicitor-General will tell us something about them, for we are talking of people who, irrespective of race, owe allegiance to the same Crown as us, and hold passports issued on behalf of the same Government. We must decide whether to treat them as first- or second-class citizens or to make them international outcasts.

Mr. Chapman: We are all grateful to the Leader of the Liberal Party for raising this issue. As he conceded, this is a wrecking Amendment. Nevertheless, I have enormous sympathy for it because here we are debating the number of admissions. The broad point is that a number of us who voted for Second Reading will not vote against Amendments like this, and certainly will not support Clause 1, unless we get from the Government a more liberal attitude to the number of entrants. That is the issue.
I take my stand with the leading article published in The Guardian today, which summarised the view of many hon. Members. I will quote one paragraph because this kind of view has not gone on record among the rather extreme positions taken yesterday by right hon. and hon. Members who were either totally for or totally against the Bill. This is an in-between position where I take my stand and which affects my attitude to Clause 1. The leading article said:
The Government must raise the quota of vouchers. It must do so at least to a level that will avert any risk of creating stateless persons.
This is the very point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Given our past commitments, it would be intolerable to turn people away with British passports. If the present quota of 1,500 vouchers runs out, then it must be extended.

Even if it runs out by the end of April, then another 1,500 vouchers must be granted in May or June.
I do not agree absolutely with that. There must be flexibility.
The Government is fully entitled "—
this is why I voted for Second Reading—
to control the overall rate of inflow and it may have to curtail the quota of people coming from other parts of the Commonwealth. It cannot, however, go back on a commitment involving citizenship.
That is a perfectly fair middle position to take in this debate. I voted for control of inflow. I am not prepared to stand for a rate of inflow which will create Stateless persons at our doors and result in a lot of people undergoing undue hardship in Kenya. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to be frank in his reply. Is the number of 1,500 fixed by the Government negotiable or not? If it is not, if the Government are absolutely, determined to stick to that figure, I shall vote for Amendments that will broaden the scope of exemptions. That is the only way of fighting the Government on this issue.

Sir J. Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are 800,000 Tamils in Ceylon who are entitled to passports of the United Kingdom and Colonies, many of the Indians in South Africa, and that, if the Aborigines are not Australian citizens, they are also entitled to United Kingdom citizenship?

Mr. Chapman: We debated this yesterday and I accept the principle that the Government have the right to control the rate of flow. That is what The Guardian says. But unless the Government are flexible about the figure of 1,500, so that the situation envisaged by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) does not arise, all we can do to show our disapproval of the Government's inflexibility is to vote for Amendments for further exemptions from control.
I beg my hon. Friend to realise that this is the crux of the matter. I go a stage further, to a point hinted at in The Guardian. If there is some great difficulty about the total, I would be prepared to say—and I do so advisedly—that the numbers at present coming from India and Pakistan should be cut in favour of the Asians in Kenya. In other words, we have a greater commitment to these people in Kenya than we


have to ordinary citizens of India and Pakistan. I am not prepared to vote for a Clause which, when carried out, would involve an absolutely inflexible ceiling of 1,500.

The Chairman: Order. I do not think that that argument can be made on this Amendment.

Mr. Chapman: I shall not press it, Sir Eric. I am grateful for your tolerance in allowing me to go so far. But this Amendment is an opportunity to press the Government to say whether the figure of 1,500 is a definite commitment and whether they are prepared to allow flexibility in order to avoid creating the disgraceful conditions to which the right hon. Member for Devon, North referred. I hope that we shall have a sympathetic reply. If not, I shall withhold my support on this matter.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene briefly now to deal with two or three of the points which have been raised. There will no doubt be other points which may be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.
First, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) raised a point concerning the effect of the 1963 Constitution. There is no doubt that those who were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and who were, up to Kenyan independence, subject to control by the 1962 Act, were, consequent upon independence, because their connection then was with the United Kingdom, entitled, as a result of the independence agreement, to apply to Her Majesty's Government representative for a United Kingdom passport and with that passport were entitled to enter this country.
I sought to make this point clear last night in exchanges with the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). I made it clear then that there could be no doubt of their entitlement. There could certainly be doubt as to whether they would apply, whether they, as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, would seek to opt for Kenyan citizenship, and

there was also, of course, great doubt as to whether circumstances would arise in which they would seek to come here. All these things were in doubt. What was not in doubt was the right granted to them at the time of Kenyan independence.
As I said last night, there could be no question of a loophole and, if there was any misunderstanding, it was those who were involved who did not understand. It is clear, therefore, that this Clause, which has naturally aroused great controversy, does take away a right that was allowed. If that were not so, there would not be the great controversy and depth of feeling which exist.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) both raised the important question of the figure of 1,500. Yesterday my right hon. Friend indicated that the responsibility for allocation would fall on the High Commission in Nairobi or the High Commissions elsewhere if there were to be a demand from others who would be covered by this control. He made it clear that the method of allocation would not be as it is for existing employment vouchers under the present scheme as it has now been slightly re-organised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. He indicated that, in allocating these vouchers, firstly there would be a consciousness of the situation of the person concerned, a consciousness of the extent of hardship, of the legal situation in which that person was involved, and it would not therefore be a question simply of whether he wanted to come, whether he was worried about business. The actual circumstances of the case and the situation in which he was put by actions that might be taken by the Kenya Government would be taken into consideration. It is that sort of voucher, to deal with the situation which now exists in East Africa.
5.0 p.m.
My right hon. Friend also said that the figure of 1,500 vouchers that have been announced was a figure that must be flexible, and the extent of that flexibility must depend on the nature of the situation. I would be unreasonable to ask my right hon. Friend to announce some new figure. Were he to announce some new figure this would be because we assumed a situation which does not exist at this moment.

The Chairman: Order. I have not interrupted the Minister so far, but I must point out, in the interests of controlling this debate, that this question of the administration of the voucher system really cannot be debated any further on this Amendment.

Mr. Chapman: On a point of order. This is a very difficult matter because the issue for so many of us is this: do we increase the number of exemptions, or do we accept from the Government that they will be flexible in the numbers that they will allow in under the quota system? This is very relevant to our discussion.

The Chairman: The hon. Member has made his point and he has heard a substantial reply. If we pursue this in any detail on this Amendment we shall find ourselves in a very irregular position later on.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. Will not the question raised by my hon. Friend be in order on the debate on Clause stand part?

The Chairman: I do not want to prejudge that question. I am suggesting to the Committee that we should confine ourselves to what is strictly relevant to this Amendment.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order. Is the Amendment not so wide that this is a debate on Clause stand part, and would it not be for the convenience of the Committee if we had that debate now?

The Chairman: One can never say that the debate on any particular Amendment is the same as a debate on Clause stand part. This Amendment admits a fairly wide debate. That is recognised, but if we pursue in any further detail the questions as to how the voucher system is to be administered, we shall find ourselves in considerable difficulty later on. Therefore I would urge both the Minister and other hon. Members not to pursue this particular point any further on this Amendment.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. Is it not the case that at some stage it is necessary that the figure for the extension of the vouchers should be discussed? It would be quite improper that there

should not be a full debate on that. Therefore, although I understand the difficulties about anticipating decisions later, if we cannot pursue the question of the figure further under this fairly wide Amendment, will we be able to do it on the debate on Clause stand part? Otherwise we might be excluded from discussing this extremely important aspect of the matter altogether.

The Chairman: I do not want to prejudge anything. I am not at all sure that it will arise on the debate on Clause stand part. The matter has been ventilated. I understand the Minister to have given a partial answer to it at any rate. On this Amendment we had better pursue the precise terms of this Amendment.

Mr. Thorpe: May I seek your guidance on this point? The specific Amendment which has been moved is susceptible of quantification. The suggestion is that any one of the 900 million persons living in the Commonwealth, who can claim Commonwealth parentage, would thereby have the right to come into this country. As I see it, what the Minister will tell us is that the figure of 1,500 applicants, plus dependants, is in his view a preferable figure. In my respectful submission, it would surely be in order for him to justify his figure as against mine.

Mr. Paget: Further to this point of order. If I may respectfully say so, I would not argue for a moment that it was admissible on this Amendment, but when we come to the debate on Clause stand part I would venture to say (a) that it is extremely important; and (b) that it must be in order on the debate on Clause stand part to be able to say: "I accept this Clause because it covers the right number of people" or: "I reject it because it covers too many, or because it covers too few". Surely those arguments must be in order when we come to the debate on Clause stand part?

Mr. James Johnson: If you are to rule out of order a discussion on the flexibility in numbers on the debate on Clause 1 stand part, what about the debate on Clause 2 stand part? This matter of admission or re-admission to the United Kingdom or elsewhere is literally a matter of life or


death in the near future for thousands of Kenya-Asian citizens. Can we have a debate on Clause 2 stand part?

The Chairman: I will do my best to try to answer those points of order. My chief concern is to help the Committee in order to arrange our debates in the most convenient form to all concerned. Obviously, I cannot say what will be relevant on the debate on Clause 2 stand part. I am impressed with what the right hon. Member who moved the Amendment said, and in view of his representations and in view of what appears to be the general desire of the Committee, it might help a great many hon. Members if within certain limits, the Minister were to give an answer to the points that have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I accept the wisdom of your observation, but there is one aspect which is rather worrying and over which I see great difficulty, because this Amendment, peculiar as it may seem, is in some respect wider than the debate on Clause stand part. This Bill is amending the former Act and this Amendment is wider than the original Act. This places us in some difficulty, and the Chair in very great difficulty. I accept your suggestion that the Minister should clarify this point but I do feel that either the wider debate must take place, with your permission, on this very wide Amendment, which is wider than the Act itself which we are amending, or on the debate on Clause stand part. It is a question of your decision naturally, but it must be a wide debate on one or the other.

The Chairman: I entirely agree.

Mr. Ennals: Further to that point of order. I agree with the points that have been made, that without a consideration of the question of flexibility hon. Gentlemen are in a difficult position because this is a matter of extreme importance. I wonder whether I could submit that this might be properly taken on the debate on Clause stand part? I want to take this further.
I know that my right hon. Friend, who has been called out of the Chamber in order to meet the diplomatic representative of a Commonwealth country—and

who will be returning to the Chamber shortly—has a statement which he intends to make which is very relevant to the subject. It would not be appropriate for me to deal in detail with the points that he will raise. If you would accept that it can be dealt with on the debate on Clause stand part, I could then con-time with the explanation that I was seeking to give.

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order. Clearly the Committee wishes to be reasonable to Ministers. This goes without saying, but we are debating a very important Measure, upon which there is passionate feeling on both sides of the Committee. I would have thought that when a Committee of the House of Commons has to wait to discuss a matter until a particular Minister finds it convenient to be here, then it is an outrageous way to treat that Committee. May I suggest that if the Minister cannot answer this point we should have another Minister who can?

The Chairman: I do not think that this exchange of views has been unfruitful. I suggest that we now proceed and that the Minister should answer the points that have been raised, as far as he can.

Mr. Ennals: Before the points of order were raised, I was seeking to deal with points put from both sides of the Committee about the number of vouchers. I said that the Government do not intend to announce a new figure, but that they had made it clear through the statement of my right hon. Friend yesterday and the statement which I made a few minutes ago that they must be flexible, and that flexibility must apply not only to the means by which the allocation is made, namely, the selection of people whose need is greatest according to the situation in which they are placed, but to the numbers, and flexibility can be based only on the circumstances of the time.
For instance, if a United Kingdom citizen in East Africa holding a United Kingdom passport were to be expelled—and we hope that that would not be the case—from the country in which he now finds himself, this would create an overwhelming case for him to be admitted to the United Kingdom, whether a certain number of vouchers had been used or whether


the total number of vouchers had not been used.

Mr. James Johnson: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the Kenya Government have passed legislation whereby after 1st March citizens who have not a job are to be asked to leave by 30th June? They may be taken to the courts and fined X thousand shillings. If they are not able to leave, what will happen to them? Will they be put in detention camps in Kenya, and will we bail them out? We should be told what "flexibility" means.

Mr. Ennals: I have sought to deal with precisely that point. The Government are fully aware of notices which were issued yesterday. I do not know how many such notices were issued. It was only 24 hours ago that they were issued. I know that a certain date was set upon that notice and that there was also a clause which implied that a person could apply for an extension. I do not want to go into the details. [Interruption.] If hon. Members put questions to me, they must listen to my answers.
It is precisely these situations and the fact that certain actions may be taken which make it essential that the Government should make clear that the number of 1,500 cannot be a ceiling and that there must be flexibility according to the situation of individuals. It is impossible to go further than that in giving the reasons why my right hon. Friend indicated the flexibility of the Government.

Mr. David Steel: The Minister is making a very important point. I have in my hand a refusal of application for an entry permit issued to an employer in Nairobi dated 17th February which is couched in these terms:
I regret that your application for an entry permit under Class A for your above-named employee has not been approved. You should therefore dispense with his services before 8th March. Mr."—
X—I do not want to mention the name—
should therefore make arrangements to leave Kenya together with his dependants before 30th June, 1968.
Is the Minister saying that someone with this certificate in his hand will be allowed into this country as of right?

Mr. Ennals: What I am saying is that the recipient of that letter—and I have seen the text of the letter—would, after

this Bill receives the Royal Assent, proceed immediately to the office of the High Commissioner and put forward his claim to be granted a voucher with which there will be an entry certificate which will admit him to this country. The hon. Gentleman does not know, and I do not know, how many people in a given period will receive such a letter. All that I can say is that the Government must watch the position in the light of the situation which exists in Kenya and of the individuals concerned whose position may be challenged, but that they cannot give a new figure or a new ceiling. The Committee has the assurance which I have given that there will be flexibility in dealing with these problems. It will, I think, agree that that is as far as my right hon. Friend can be expected to go.

Mr. Whitaker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with whom a lot of us have a great deal of sympathy, for giving way. Would he give an assurance that if, which we all hope will not happen, the Kenya Government decided to expel all the Asian citizens with United Kingdom citizenship the British Government's tolerance would extend to admitting them all?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend will not expect me to answer hypothetical questions. I would expect him to put them, but he would not expect me to answer them. I have already made it clear that decisions concerning the flexibility of the issue of vouchers must be taken in the light of the situation affecting United Kingdom citizens in Kenya.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: On a point of order. The debate has reached a stage in which the argument centres on Amendment No. 14, page 2, line 10, at end add:
(2) (a) Notice, in the foregoing subsection shall apply to any citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies or to a dependant of any citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies who has in the country of his residence—

(i) been expelled, or
(ii) been denied the right to continue in the employment or type of employment in which he has been wont to work, or
(iii) been prevented from carrying on the business he has been wont to conduct, or
(iv) has in any other way been denied the right to earn his living and support his dependants;



(b) any citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies shall be entitled to obtain from the Consul in the country of his residence a certificate stating that one of the conditions set out in the preceding subsection applies to him and such certificate shall be accepted by all immigration officers.
and Amendment No. 25—Clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert:
(c) (i) holds a United Kingdom passport and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or who holds such a passport issued in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland, and
(ii) has been deprived of his right to work or his citizenship by the country in which he was ordinarily resident immediately prior to his entry into the United Kingdom or at the time when he seeks entry into the United Kingdom.
Would it be possible to extend the selection of Amendments so that those two Amendments about expellees and people in a similar position could be considered by the Minister in answering the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe)?

The Chairman: I was conscious of the fact that the debate is covering a great deal of the ground which would be covered by Amendments Nos. 14, 15—page 1, line 5. leave out Clause 1—and Amendment No. 24—Clause 2, page 3, line 5, at end insert:
(c) any person who being a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies has no right of re-entry to his country of domicile.
I am in the Committee's hands. If that is the Committee's desire, so be it. But if objection is taken, I cannot do it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Objection is taken.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Would my hon. Friend agree that an assurance given in explicit terms that no Asian holder of a United Kingdom passport who has been expelled from Kenya will be deprived of admittance to this country would allay the fears and anxieties of the Asians in Kenya to such an extent that the opposition to this Bill would virtually disappear?

Mr. Ennals: I can no more answer my hon. Friend's hypothetical question than I could answer the hypothetical question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker). I have stated the position of the Government fairly and clearly.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Ennals: I cannot give way. There will be time for a number of points to be raised on other Amendments and on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. Do not hon. Members on both sides of the Committee realise that this is a Committee stage? If they want to make speeches later, they will have ample opportunity to do so.

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful for that intervention.
I come to a question put to me last night by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and which has been repeated by the right hon. Member for Devon, North, although he did not quote the words. I had better read the question which the hon. Member put yesterday:
What are the Government to do to an Asian citizen in Kenya who, with a British passport, leaves Kenya—as he is perfectly entitled to do—goes to Paris and, after staying in Paris for a short time, comes on an Air France plane to London Airport?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1294.]
A number of other hon. Members had put questions about what would happen when a certain person, controlled, as he will be, by the Bill when it becomes an Act, arrives at London Airport or at another port.
The first point I must make is that the circumstances in which those who will now come in under this control and may obtain admission to this country will, of course, be clearly stated in the light of the passage of this Bill. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has some words to say on this when we reach the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. This will be known, therefore, to those who now seek to come to this country.
The effect of this Bill will also be known in other countries which will, therefore, have to decide for themselves whether they will admit or will not admit persons who will not have entry certificates entitling them to come to this country. I cannot say what will be the actions of other Governments. I can only say that Her Majesty's Government will inform other Governments of the situation.
Now we come to the question of the persons who may arrive at ports in this country. They will understand the implications of the passing of this Bill. It will give to the immigration officer the right to refuse those who do not hold entry certificates, and this will be made quite clear in the statement that will be made—vouchers or entry certificates covering dependants, or those coming as students or business men or others who come in that category.
The only thing I would add is that the immigration officer, of course, and Minsters and the Home Office have the right to use their discretion in certain circumstances. This is a discretion which is very frequently used with people coming to this country. There are cases when the ascertainability of the facts is not known, when there is some uncertainty, and the immigration officer may initially refuse. The question may be referred to Ministers. Many matters are referred to Ministers. I have no doubt that would be the case if there were difficult problems at the ports.
But I must make it clear that the passing of this Bill, if it receives the Royal Assent, will of course mean that there will be restriction on the rights of those United Kingdom passport holders who are to be controlled by this Bill to come freely to this country as they have done up to now. That is the purpose of the Bill. I have indicated the flexibility which will exist, because of the vouchers, and also that, in situations which inevitably there may be, in particular in situations of urgency, the immigration officer, the Home Office or Ministers have of course the right of using their discretion.

Mr. Grimond: The Committee is now put in a shameful position, largely owing to the shameful nature of the Bill. Let us look at the situation. This is a racial Bill, and it is sheer hypocrisy on the part of Ministers to say it is not. The trouble arises because these people are not white, and this Clause is designed to allow in a great many white people and to keep out people who are not white. That is the point we are discussing, and when this Committee discusses racial Bills it ought to be very certain that they are esssential and ought to look at them extremely carefully.

Mr. Ennals: Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that as a result of this Bill any who wish entry and whose entry is not controlled ought to be turned away if the colour of their skin is not white? Because I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman what, if he was in the House yesterday, he would have known, that there are many people who will be entitled under this Bill to admission and who are not white faced. Therefore it is quite incorrect to say that this is a racial Bill.

Mr. Grimond: No. This is humbug. Anybody who believes that this Bill has been brought in for any other reason than to check coloured people coming to this country is really beneath contempt, if I may say so. What would the Minister himself say if it had been brought in by the Tory Party? We should never hear the end of it.
It is designed to deprive United Kingdom citizens holding United Kingdom passports of an essential right of citizenship. Citizenship and the rights of citizens are matters about which this Committee should be deeply concerned. Of course, the Bill is a clear breach of an undertaking by the British Government. When I think of the speeches I have heard praising the Empire and Commonwealth and then I have heard some of the leading Imperialists hastening to deny the right to visit the mother of the Commonwealth of the very people who relied on the word of our Government, I feel ashamed.
I think we must examine this with very great care. What are we told by Ministers? That the figure is flexible. Who is to decide whether it can be raised or not? The House of Commons is not to be consulted. This is to be an administrative decision.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Sir Eric. Did you not call the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. J. Grimond) to intervene in the Under-Secretary's speech?

The Chairman: No. I called him to continue the debate.

Mr. Grimond: Thank you, Sir Eric.
This is a decision which vitally affects the liberties, the freedom, the right to earn their living, of people who hold our passports, and it is to be taken on


administrative grounds. No one, certainly in the Committee—for all I know, nobody at all—knows what the grounds will be. There will be no right of appeal. Let us be clear about that. There will be a right of appeal on the facts, but not on the decision. We should be quite clear about that.
We have been given no information by the Minister as to the type of considerations which will be taken into account. Is it, for instance, to be decided on racial feeling in certain towns and cities in this country? Or is it to be the siutation in Africa? What are to be the considerations upon which this administrative decision will be taken?
For this Committee to accept that it has no right to inquire into these matters is, to my mind, an abrogation of an absolute duty of the House of Commons.
We are told that the immigration officers of course, use wide discretion. They certainly do, and some of us would rather see that discretion narrowed than extended. However, taking that decision will put an almost intolerable burden on the people who will have to make up their minds on these cases. As was pointed out, by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), I think it was, we know that there are certain people who will be required to leave Kenya. A great many have so far been encouraged by the Government to try to come here, and this country has been open to them, but we do not know whether they are in fact going to be allowed to come here or not, and this is the point at issue. We have had no answer whatever to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) as to whether in a specific case this man will be allowed to come here or not. I submit that there may be cases in which one ought to leave the Government very great discretion, but cases like this, involving the liberties and right to earn their living and the whole future of people who have relied upon the word of British Governments, and who have regarded themselves as entitled to the full protection of the House of Commons, and have been proud of the Commonwealth, are different. We must have a lot more information than we have so far had. I

am bound to say also that we know from past experience, alas, that with Home Office Ministers there is very great need for very close scrutiny about the discretion which is exercised.
Therefore, I find the answer of the Minister so far wholly unsatisfactory. I hope that if it is necessary—I concede that it may well be necessary in certain circumstances—to control immigration, first of all he will not be moved by arguments that there may be hundreds of thousands of people in the South Seas who could suddenly appear—we all know that that is unlikely—and that secondly he will pay attention to the wish of this Committee that the people who have United Kingdom passports should have priority. After all, we allow the Irish in to this country without any difficulty whatever. This makes complete nonsense of the claim that this Bill is not about racialism. I would add my voice to the voices of those who have argued that if it is necessary to control immigration then these people should have priority, and, if necessary, cuts should be made in the quotas for other people.
May I add one last word? France took a million people into her country. It is a pretty poor reflection on the state of this country when apparently the Government are terrified by the prospect of a few thousand of their own fellow citizens coming in. These are not people who are uneducated, useless mouths to be fed. Many of them are highly qualified. In my view, a certain injection of them might do a great deal of good to our public services and businesses.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I intervene briefly to support what has been said by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). The view that he has expressed underlines the strength of one of my main criticisms about the nature of the Bill and, in particular, the matters referred to in the Clause and the Amendment.
I do not believe that the House of Commons can pass a satisfactory Measure on a matter of such complication as this in the time which the Government have suggested. I remember the occasion when we discussed exactly the same matters as those arising under the Clause about the numbers who were


to be allowed into the country, and I record how, when we were in opposition, we insisted that more time must be provided for debate so that the Government could consider the representations put to them and, having considered them, should be able to come back, according to the normal process.
During the passage of the 1962 Measure, I remember how strongly we protested when a Guillotine was introduced to prevent us from having that full discussion. Even so, when that Measure went through, we had far greater opportunities for debate than we are being allowed today, although, under this Clause, we go much further than we did in the 1962 Act. We are specifying deliberately that certain people who have United Kingdom passports shall be deprived of their rights. That goes even further than the highly offensive Measure of 1962. All my hon. Friends thought that the 1962 Measure was extremely offensive, and all of them insisted that we must have ample time to discuss it—days, if necessary. If the Government seek to force through this Measure tonight, not merely will it be a shameful one in its general principle, but it will be shoddy, indiscriminate and careless. It will reflect injustices which the House cannot contemplate in advance. That is something which we should not do.
Inevitably, discussion on the first Amendment has led to a great deal of confusion, which is not the fault of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. He has not contributed to the difficulties. It is the Bill which causes them. Any hon. Member who has heard the confusion arising under this Clause and the inability of the Government to elucidate the difficulties will agree that, if we proceed to try and deal with the matter in the way that the Government propose, deliberately and consciously we shall inflict heavy injustice on people who have relied upon our word.
Let me come to the specific point in my hon. Friend's reply to the debate—

Sir David Renton: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the confusion which has arisen in the debate has been due mainly to the fact that the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) is acknowledged to be a wrecking

one which would create a nonsense not only of the Bill but of the principal Act as well?

Mr. Foot: The Amendment has been accepted by the Chair as a proper matter for debate, and that is what we are debating. But, as has been indicated, it is true that because the Amendment is so wide it enables us to have a very wide discussion. That was part of the original confusion, because many hon. Members wondered whether, if we had a wide debate on the Amendment, we should be precluded from discussing it on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. I understand from the decision which has been made that we shall still have an opportunity for a wide debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, and, as a result, I do not propose to traverse the whole argument now. However, it is no good the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) trying to limit the debate. It is completely within the rules of order.

Mr. Harold Gurden: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the occupant of the Chair clearly stated that he would not prejudge his decision about the debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill?

Mr. Foot: We do not want the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) ruling on what is to be debated in the Committee.
Remembering the record of all my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench in matters concerning Commonwealth immigration, I hope that they will provide ample opportunity for debate. If we try to push through this Measure speedily, we shall inflict great injustices on people who have relied upon us.
In his reply, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State opened the doors wider, and then closed them. He was asked what would be the position of those who are stateless in Kenya now. All the time, larger numbers are being declared illegal immigrants or stateless persons or are having sent to them the letter to which reference has been made. Larger numbers are joining the band of those who do not know whether they will he admitted to this country. Then there are the


people who are able to make the journey. My hon. Friend's reply to those queries was to say that he could not answer them specifically, but that he hoped to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) if he said that the Government will be flexible about the total and that the figure may be raised.
I do not think that that is at all satisfactory. Of course, I want the figure to be raised, but I think that the House of Commons must decide that.

Mr. Chapman: It is reasonably satisfactory for the Minister to say that he will be flexible. If he were to say that he will open the door to everyone who wants to come, he would be urging the Kenya Government to expel everyone.

Mr. Foot: I agree that it is better for him to be flexible than inflexible, but it is not altogether satisfactory. Some of the difficulties are inherent in the Bill, and that problem is one of them. The more that the Government say that they will be generous, the more they will encourage people to be sent from Kenya. But the difficulty arises earlier than that. My hon. Friend said that if a person has been expelled from Kenya he could not envisage a situation where he would not be allowed into this country. That was an incitement, if ever there was one, and that is what will happen in a great many cases.
The Government have got themselves into hopeless confusion, and they cannot solve the problem merely by saying that they will be flexible about the figure, because that does not face up to the question raised by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is no more than a piece of soft soap, and I am sure that it will satisfy few of my hon. Friends.
We are confronted by a dilemma which is inherent in the Bill itself.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): It is inherent in the situation, not in the Bill. Faced with a situation which is changing and transient and whose development is uncertain, the question is whether we should try to bring it under control, or leave it uncontrolled.

Mr. Foot: No one can deny that there are difficulties in the situation. However, the difficulties with which we are confronted are inherent in the Bill. The Bill is doing something which I never expected to see a British Parliament do. It is depriving United Kingdom citizens of some of their rights. That is the situation with which we are dealing.
In his reply, my hon. Friend said that it can be dealt with by being flexible about the figure. Apparently that is the answer to the problem raised by the Amendment. That is not sufficient.
There is only one way in which the Government can mitigate this part of the Bill, and I hope that they will do it. This follows the line suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield and the line of argument in The Guardian this morning. It does not go as far as some would like, but it is a move in the right direction. We should try to get from the Government, either in reply to this Clause or in the debate on Clause stand part—certainly at some time before the evening is through—an undertaking that the figure for people allowed to come in from Kenya is to be greatly enlarged. We do not want the Government merely to say that it will be a flexible figure and that somebody at the port will discriminate between one person and another in a more flexible manner. We must have the total figure raised.
If the Government had said at the beginning of the creation of the situation, as the Home Secretary called it, "Of course, the British Government will stand by their word", the situation would have been much less difficult to deal with. It is because they are not standing by their word that the situation originally created by the right hon. Gentleman has been so greatly and dangerously inflamed. If the Government tonight were to say that the figure will be greatly raised—if it were put up to 8,000 or 10,000 from Kenya over a certain period—they would at least ease the situation and we could have further discussions about it. The Government would make a big advance in the Bill if they would do that.
I am replying to the speech of the Minister who was suggesting that it was sufficient, in reply to this Amendment, merely to say that the Government would be flexible. That is insufficient, because


in addition to what was said by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, it would add still further to the powers of discretion given to administrative officers in dealing with the matter, and this is quite improper. We are responsible. If injustices are to be inflicted on people with United Kingdom passports we must take direct responsibility. We must not try to shuffle it on to someone else.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Having heard the Minister's reply, the one thing that I feel we are in great difficulty about is that we do not know what will happen if the Bill should get the Royal Assent. The Minister told us that he could not envisage a situation arising in which an expelled citizen from Kenya would not be allowed to come into this country. This means that an Asian in Kenya only has to drive his car on the wrong side of a roundabout and, because he is not a Kenyan citizen, he would be expelled and we should have to take him here. By what he has said, the Minister appears to have created a clear loophole in the Bill which will be swooped on by a vast number of people in Kenya.
Another point which is entirely unsatisfactory concerns the reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). In his answer the Minister said that this problem about stateless people would not arise, because most of them know about the Bill. Having heard some of the points which have already been made in Committee, there was not much of a disincentive for many of them to come.
We were then told about this extra-ordinary matter of discretion by immigration officers. If all these things throughout the provisions of the Bill do not add up to doubt and added incitement to people to come, I do not understand what does. By publishing this Bill the Government have created chaos and a terrible rush at Nairobi Airport. As a result of what has been said this afternoon, the rush on Friday and Saturday of this week will not be any less.
5.45 p.m.
What is to happen to the stateless people who come? What is to happen if the immigration officers use their discretion? Refugee camps have been mentioned this afternoon. Are we to have a sort of Gaza Strip established on the top of the white cliffs of Dover? What will we do to stop them coming? Will we send our immigration officers into the aircraft to ascertain whether they are entitled to come in before we let them off, which puts the responsibility back on the airline that brought them?
The Government have created a situation which has led to greater uncertainty this afternoon than at the beginning of the Bill. I have the greatest possible doubts about the Bill. Unless I get clear undertakings about what is implicit in it and how it will work, I shall find it impossible to know what to do.

Mr. Winnick: The Amendment which we are now discussing has been described as a wrecking Amendment. Obviously it is, but it gives many of us, before we come to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, an opportunity to make one or two references to what we believe is the racial bias in the Bill as it stands.
It seems rather unfortunate that the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend from the Home Department do not seem to recognise that many people look upon Clause 1 as a racial preference given to people of European origin. It is all very well for the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend to deny this, but they will know that the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is the distinguished Chairman, is extremely disturbed by the nature of the Bill and by what can only be described as the racial bias in it. I hope that the members of the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants will not resign. They are doing a fine job. Even if the Bill is passed without any substantial Amendment, I shall deeply regret it if they give up their voluntary positions. I have done a great deal of work with the Secretary in another capacity connected with race relations. I hope that the members of this Committee will continue to do their job.
I find it impossible to accept the Clause as it stands. I cannot see how anyone


could honestly state that this is not a clear case of racial discrimination. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said that if the people involved generally who wanted to come were white there would be no trouble. Of course he was telling the truth. What I find so obnoxious about Clause 1 is the way in which it gives a preference to people of European origin. What is also disturbing—and I have done a little research into the position—is the way in which the Asians were treated before Kenya became independent. They were not treated quite as badly as the Africans, but for a number of years now they have had inferior status to the Africans and they have fought a campaign to get equal standing. I can understand the feeling of many Asians who not only object basically to the Bill, but also see it as an extension of a discrimination which they had to suffer prior to Kenya becoming independent. The Bill is really saying that in practice those Europeans who want to come to the United Kingdom can do so without difficulty, but not the Asians.
I hope that when we come to a later stage of the Clause it will be possible for the Home Secretary or my hon. Friend to make some concession about the racial preference in Clause 1. I still cannot understand why Amendment No. 2 was not allowed to be debated. I am sorry that it was not debated, because this is one of the main reasons why many voted against the Bill last night.
If one accepts the position, as many do, that some restrictions are necessary—and I am not altogether certain that they are—because of racial conditions in Britain and all the rest of it, and we bring in a Bill which, by the very nature of things, is bound to be described as unfortunate, and by some people perhaps even as deplorable, it is essential to make sure that in such a Bill no preference is given to one particular racial group.
As I said a few moments ago, it is amazing to hear my right hon. Friend deny that there is a racial flavour in the Clause. If it is necessary for a Bill such as this to be brought in, it should not only be fair, but be seen to be fair. If many Members, such as myself, and people outside, such as the Archbishop

of Canterbury and his colleagues on the National Committee, believe that the Bill is a form of discrimination in favour of whites, it is understandable if many people not only in Kenya but in other parts of the Commonwealth come to the same conclusion.
The Home Secretary seems to be blind to this fact. He comes to the Dispatch Box and denies that there is a racial preference in Clause 1. His statement does not convince me, and it does not convince many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It does not convince the National Committee, and those deeply concerned about race relations. Even now I hope that it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to understand our feelings about this racial preference, and to make some concession to our viewpoint.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I shall be brief. Last night I voted for the Bill, but I did so with a heavy heart. I had grave doubts about whether I was doing the right thing. I appreciated the Home Secretary's predicament, but I was hopeful that some easement would be given during the discussion today.
The Bill has been rushed. I do not know how many thousand Asians will arrive at London Airport by the end of this week. Had the Government not lost their head, there would not been this rush. Why not provide for a figure of 5,000 spread over the year? Hon. Gentlemen opposite may disagree with me, but I am entitled to my view. I question whether anyone is really happy about this situation. No one can be. I was partially persuaded last night by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). His words pulled me into the Lobby.
Reference has been made to Asians receiving notice to quit Kenya and going to the High Commissioner's office. What will happen at his office in Nairobi during the next few months? I forecast that it will be flooded with people. We were not told what the answer would be, and I think that the Government have to satisfy us on where they are going on this issue.
The whole future and livelihood of 100,000-plus people depend on what we decide here today. Goodness knows what may happen to them if we make the wrong decision. I would not want


difficulties put in the way of expanding our economy, but we have given our word. I remember that during the war it was no problem to house 25,000 United States troops off the Queen Mary. They were put up somewhere in Britain. This is an emergency operation, and we must tackle it as such.
What would have happened if the Conservative Government had tried to rush this Measure through in 48 hours? What would hon. Gentlemen opposite have done? Having studied last night's Division lists, I was surprised to find that a number of Left-wing Members abstained, or voted for the Bill. I wonder why? I find it most disconcerting that some of them were not here to do their duty. They always say that they are concerned about these problems

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) rose—

Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman may not like these things being said, but he and his hon. Friend have said enough things to us over the years, and I have listened to them.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose—

Sir A. V. Harvey: I shall finish my speech.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. If the hon. Member who has the Floor does not give way, the hon. Member who is seeking to intervene must resume his seat.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Whenever I speak—

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Order.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The last time I took part in a debate I had a brush with the hon. Gentleman. He must contain himself. He is always dishing it out to others, but he cannot take it.

Mr. Heffer: I shall say it from a sitting position.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I do not care what the hon. Gentleman thinks. He is going to listen to what I have to say.

Mr. Heffer: There were 35 of us. How many Conservatives were there?

Sir A. V. Harvey: I have a great respect for the Home Secretary, and have had over the last 23 years. If he were to say that the figure will be raised to 5,000 a year, and reviewed after a time, this would go some way towards meeting my anxiety. I hope that he will give the matter further consideration, because the people about whom we are talking are fine citizens and they could make a contribution to our economy. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give the matter further thought.

Mr. James Griffiths: When my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was speaking, my right hon. Friend intervened and said that he had introduced the Bill because of the present situation. It is with a heavy heart that I say that on that ground he has made his case. I say to those who share my views that in the months and years ahead we, too, shall face a test, and I hope that we shall be worthy of it. Speaking as a trade unionist, and as a Member of the Labour Party, I hope that we shall ensure equality of treatment for those who have come to this country.
My right hon. Friend said that he wants the situation to be controlled. I ask him to consider some things very carefully. If the policy is to work, it is essential that there should be control not only at this end. I understand my right hon. Friend's fears that if the situation is not controlled it will overwhelm us. I am sure he realises that the situation must be controlled in Nairobi as well. This difficulty has arisen not only because the Bill has been introduced, but because of the situation in Kenya, about which very little has been said.
All those who know and love that beautiful country know that she is making big efforts to establish a viable economy, but at the moment thousands of Africans are unemployed there. They are therefore taking measures to secure jobs for their own people. I do not want to call this racial, but one result of the situation is that they are seeking to replace Indians with Africans. The right hon. Gentleman quoted young Tom Mboya on this.
These people are United Kingdom citizens, holding British passports. I still hope that most of them will stay in


Kenya, because Kenya needs them. I hope that the Kenya Government will make it possible for them to stay, but if they make it impossible for these people to get jobs, and they become jobless, their plight will be terrible. There may well be thousands of Indians, with United Kingdom citizenship, without social services if they lose their jobs. As far as I know, there is very little in the way of social services and unemployment insurance for those who are out of work. This is one reason why I hope my right hon. Friend will be as flexible as possible, and not close his mind to a situation which might compel us, not necessarily to alter the Bill, but to bring pressure on him and the Government to increase the numbers that will be accepted.
I do not think that we could sit down in comfort without taking some action if, during the next few months, thousands of Indians, who are United Kingdom citizens like ourselves, became jobless and had no income of any kind.

Mr. Callaghan: I agree.

Mr. Griffiths: I could not accept that situation. Last night's debate, in which I did not take part showed a very high level from both sides, but we heard little from the Home Secretary of any discussions with the Kenya Government or their President, who has shown great qualities of statesmanship in the past few years. Many of us have known Jomo Kenyatta over a long period. The Kenya Government can help us here and I believe that they would.
6.0 p.m.
I therefore ask my right hon. Friend, first, is it too late to consider this matter now with the Kenya Government and ask them also to be flexible about their employment policy in Kenya's own interests? I said earlier that all of us remember that it is we who first brought Indians to Kenya. The young generation, who have been born and grown up there, like their fathers and forefathers, are making a wonderful contribution. Therefore, when discussing this Amendment, which may be a wrecking Amendment and which has turned into a discussion on the Clause, and remembering that my right hon. Friend's policy is that we cannot allow complete freedom of

entry even for United Kingdom citizens, we must consider circumstances in which those in Kenya might be unable to come here and be prevented from working or taking advantage of social services in Kenya.
That is the situation which could blow this Bill and my right hon. Friend's policy to smithereens. We could not stand that situation. For these reasons, I hope that he will take note of this fact. I speak as one who, last night, like all hon. Members, approached this matter with a heavy heart. I was convinced that some control was necessary and I voted for the Bill, but it is essential that my right hon. Friend pays attention—I am sure that he will—and seeks a solution, I hope in agreement with the Kenya Government. It would be intolerable if perhaps hundreds or even thousands of our fellow citizens could not come here but could not earn their livelihood in Kenya.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: The Amendment has been described as a wrecking Amendment, and some of us feel that, if this is so, it is justified because the Clause and the Bill should be wrecked. I recognise, as we all do, the problem facing the Government and the country. There is, of course, a limit to the number of immigrants we can absorb in Britain at any one time and in any one year, and there are social tensions as well as school and housing difficulties, which increase with the number of immigrants.
The Asians in East Africa therefore present a new and difficult problem for the Government, but I believe that they are trying to resolve it in the wrong way. These people hold United Kingdom passports, which give them the right to come here. The Bill takes away that right. Slightly to over-simplify—some of my hon. Friends might say, slightly to exaggerate—the Clause means that a United Kingdom passport is perfectly valid for white people but not for brown people. That is my first objection to the Bill. Although not, of course, in intention, in effect this is colour legislation, naked and unashamed.
My second objection to the Clause is that it breaches a British undertaking on which people relied. Many of us on this side criticise the Government and the Prime Minister in particular, for breaking


their word to the electorate, to the Commonwealth and to our allies. What those who support the Bill are now urging him and the Government to do is to break the word of those on this side of the House. After all, we created this loophole in the Kenya Independence Act. We have this responsibility and we should acknowledge it. And I am not personally prepared to break my bond.
This no doubt arose because we were anxious to provide an escape route for white Kenyans who might not wish to stay in Kenya under an African Government. We were not thinking then of the Asians, but we did not like to spell out a colour bar in the Independence Act and say that this was to help the white people to come back if they wanted to but would not include the Asians. We had not the face to do that, so the Asians were included. Therefore, we should not now create two classes of British passport—those which we have honoured because they were held by Europeans and those which we are about to dishonour because they are held by Asians.
My third objection to the Clause is that it makes these people stateless. Where are they to go? I do not criticise the policy of Kenyanisation. It is quite different from Africanisation and I do not criticise the Kenya Government for adopting it. But Kenya will not have these people. She is depriving them of their work permits, and they will have to leave. The latest reports from New Delhi, I understand, are that India will not have them either. Indeed, the attempt under the Bill to place the responsibility for them upon either Kenya or India is likely to cause a serious rift in our relations with both those great countries.
The Government, in effect, shrug their shoulders and say, "It is very bad luck for these people, of course, but they cannot come here and we shall fine British pilots or British airlines who try to bring them." But what happens if they go to Europe, for instance to France, on a British passport? When their visitors' permits expire in France, they will be repatriated, I understand, not to Kenya but to Britain because they are travelling on British passports. What shall we do then? This question, so far as I know, has not been answered at any point in the last few days.
If we allow them to come in, the Clause and the Bill are pointless. If we send them away, we shall face the embarrassing spectacle of people being shuttled back and forth across the English Channel, unable to land on either shore, stateless, homeless and jobless. That is the spectacle which this legislation will present to the whole world and it is not an attractive one.
So what should we do? In my view, the holder of a British passport has a greater right than anyone else to come here. Therefore, if it is thought—I do not say that I necessarily subscribe to this view—that more immigrants are arriving than we can absorb, there seems only one possible alternative, and that is to reduce or, if necessary, even to halt for the time being, the admission of Commonwealth immigrants under the 1962 Act until the holders of British passports have been absorbed in this country.
That is not an ideal solution and it is certainly not a solution which I personally like, but it is better, I think, to ask the other Commonwealth immigrants to wait—although this would be inconvenient and unhappy for them, it would not be totally disastrous for them—than to break our bond and make holders of British passports stateless, homeless and jobless by this Bill.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: As the representative of Southall,I can speak with experience of immigration problems. In the two years that I have been an hon. Member, I have lived with these problems and, while other hon. Members have spoken of their local immigration problems, I must admit at the outset that they are not quite the same as those that I have experienced. However, my heart is equally heavy when discussing legislation of this sort, particularly since more questions have been asked than answers have been given. I trust that the Home Secretary will provide answers to all the questions he has been asked.
I understand that my right hon. Friend recently met a number of Commonwealth diplomats. I assume that they were Kenyan diplomats and that they discussed, not only from an emotional point of view, the problems that have arisen. I trust that my right hon. Friend will pass on this information, and while


a good deal of emotion is bound to be engendered in a discussion of this sort, the practicalities of the matter must also be considered.
Although substantial numbers of the working-class people, with whom I deal, have considerable objection to the idea of our taking substantial numbers of Commonwealth immigrants into areas where they tend to congregate, they are prepared to consider this matter practically, particularly the question of whether we should accept our obligations and honour our word—if not our word, then at least the understanding that many of the Kenya Indians and Asians have had their rights—in this matter.
A few days ago a delegation from Nairobi sought me out and placed certain information before me. I have passed some of it on to the Ministry. I want to know if the facts which they presented to me are the true facts because, if they are, the problem would not appear to be as huge as has been suggested, and certainly not huge enough to warrant this type of wholesale legislation.
If we are to consider the Bill as a package, why was it not brought forward some time ago, perhaps when we were discussing the Expiring Laws Bill? When we last discussed that Measure the then Home Secretary spoke of the practical difficulties involved—difficulties which the Government are attempting to remedy in this Measure—but the legislation we were promised at that time was an extension of the Race Relations Act, 1965. Instead, we have this Measure.

Mr. Callaghan: Not instead.

Mr. Bidwell: At this juncture we have this Measure. That is all I said in mentioning the need for the 1965 Act to be extended.
Be that as it may, we must deal not only with the emotional side of the matter but with the practicalities that arise, including the race relations aspect. My constituency experience leads me to believe that these relations are on the upgrade. It is a slow process, but since 1955, when the first Indian immigrants came to my constituency, considerable progress has been made. Many of the children of these early immigrants have had some years at school and many of
"/>
them are now at work. They have made lots of friends, not all of them coloured. It is significant to note that, through the anguish of the last few days, I have received not one letter from my constituents urging me to support the Bill, although I have received a few telegrams asking me to oppose it. In the event, I abstained.
For some days I have been wrestling with my conscience on this issue. My constituents accept that there is bound to be a natural growth in the coloured population as a result of the immigrants who are already here—by the natural enlargement of families and so on—and I also understand the problems which face my right hon. Friend as the Minister responsible for these matters. I have great confidence in him and for some time he and I, like other hon. Members, have been working on this problem. I appreciate that he has a compassionate attitude toward the people involved, and it is sad to think that anyone should hint that there is a tinge of racialism in him.
6.15 p.m.
It is against that background that I must answer the questions which are put to me by Indians and Pakistanis living in my constituency, who have been disquieted by the process of this legislation. Many of the Kenyan Asians regard themselves as a cut above the Punjabi Indians in my constituency. Might not that be a blessing in disguise? Certain arbitrary figures have been given about the size of the problem and it has been suggested that about 1,500 of these people were coming each year. I mention the feelings of the Kenyan Asians and quote these figures because they are not the same as the figures we have been given and I hope that my right hon. Friend will explain the position clearly so that the true picture is visible.
Is it a question of playing cat and mouse with Jomo Kenyatta in that if more generous figures are quoted, a more vigorous policy of virtual expulsion can be followed in that country? I hope that my right hon. Friend will spell out the position, loudly and clearly, because we want to get to the guts of the matter. I have been told that in 1964 there were about 169,000 Asians in Kenya, of whom about 123,000 became British citizens under the agreement reached with the


then British Government. I have been further told that about 45,000 of them have already emigrated to Britain or elsewhere—notably to India, Pakistan, Canada and Zambia—leaving about 78,000 British citizens of Asian origin still there and eligible to emigrate here.
The delegation I met told me that of these 78,000, only about 40,000 might wish to come to Britain or immigrate elsewhere, while the others have achieved, or are applying for, Kenya citizenship. For example, 695 out of 750 doctors practising in Kenya are of Asian origin. The delegation told me that these figures are known to Her Majesty's Government and to Mr. Malcolm MacDonald and the High Commissioner. It is important also to remember that the figure of 40,000 is inclusive of wives and children.
I was at pains to ask the delegates about the educational background of these people, particularly since in my constituency we have 60 per cent. immigrant children in one school and 40 per cent. in another. One of them is my old school, because I was born in the locality and have lived there for many years. I therefore am only too well aware of the problems involved. About 90 per cent. of the Asian population in Kenya speak English, I have been told, and learn our language in English-type schools, which they attend from the age of six, seven years later taking the Kenya primary school preliminary examination, which is similar to our 11-plus examination. I pointed out that in my view that was most unprogressive.
They say that those who pass the K.P.E. go to a secondary school or high school, and those who fail go to technical schools similar to our secondary modern schools. Employment is crucial to the problem of immigrant settlement in this country because it is from that base that everything else flows. I am told that the majority of Asians in Kenya are skilled workers. Many of those take apprentice-ships, arid become engineers, mechanics, electricians and skilled workers in the building trades. Large numbers are business men and industrialists, and it is significant that in spite of regional unemployment these categories are in short supply in this country. It is common knowledge that many of these people worked in the British Administration in Kenya prior to independence, and are

familiar with Civil Service and local authority methods of office administration.
On the question of origin, it is said that the Asians in Kenya were first brought in by the British at the turn of the century. They came from the Punjab and Gujerat regions of India. Many of those now in Kenya are third generation residents, but if they opted from British citizenship on independence they receive the same treatment as recent arrivals and other aliens.
It is said that it has become very popular to regard all Asian Kenyans in Britain—who are not technically immigrants—as presenting a problem. This is not so. Their spokesmen say that these are viable people, that many will set up in business, while many others will easily find jobs in priority industries. Their children will present no schooling problems because their schooling is on the same pattern as the British. Very few of them do not speak good English.
Some lessons can be drawn from those statements. I know a few Asian Kenyans who are now living in the West London area. I find that because they have the ability to hold down better-paid jobs they are able to move into the semi-detached house regions and out of the Victorian terrace properties where everybody is crowded in and where there are overcrowded Indian lodging houses. When they move, their women can communicate freely with the white women next door, many of whom say that these Asian Kenyans are the best neighbours they have had.
I ask the House to take with a pinch of salt some of my hon. Friend's earlier remarks. This problem is moving emotionally, but it is also moving on towards better understanding. The tragedy is—and I need still to be convinced that the Bill is necessary—that we felt that we were moving towards better and happier race relationships but this legislation seems to be a substantial step backwards. It is not so much a question of the letter of the law as of the overtones and implications involved. I therefore want to know in practical terms what will be involved if we move from an apparently arbitrary figure of 1,500 a year. What would be the practical difficulties? I have not yet been told of them.

Mr. Paul Bryan: As I understand that Amendment No. 12 is also included in this debate I leave the rather broader aspects of the subject and come to the very narrow point of naturalised subjects of British Colonies in general and of Kenya in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) has written to the Home Secretary on this subject, and has asked me to apologise for his absence now. Our interest in the Amendment is the result of a visit we both made to Kenya in November last.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary said that the criterion for exemption from the provisions of the Bill was whether a person could be said to "belong to Britain". One has to acknowledge that large numbers of the Asians of whom we have been talking do not come into that category. It would not be unfair to say that many of them acquired their British passports by chance. Therefore, without saying anything disparaging about that category, whether or not we approve, it is that category that the Bill is meant to affect.
The group of which I want to talk comprises those who became naturalised before independence. It is a relatively small group. Many of them were European war refugees, some were refugees from Nazi Germany, and so on. They have British passports because they took deliberate and positive steps to become British citizens. Many of them took risks to do so. The process, if not arduous, is certainly prolonged. To start with, a person must have a five-year residential qualification. He must give proof of good character. He must have a knowledge of the English language. He must express an intention to reside in Britain or in the Colony concerned. In the end, he must get the approval of the Secretary of State or of the Governor of the area before he can finally take the oath of British citizenship.
Most of those I have met, having qualified by law as British citizens, took the most positive and sincere step of all towards becoming British by deciding that their children should become British. They took out British passports for them. Their children are educated here. Where the parents can afford it, the children go to university here, or undertake further

education, and probably qualify for the professions in this country.
Therefore, from the moment these people first decided to set out on the long path towards naturalisation, they had planned their whole lives on the assumption of British citizenship and of the legitimate expectations that flow from it. I suppose that their most natural legitimate expectation would be that of retiring to England. Those of whom I talk would have certainly left the country and retired to England by now had they thought that there was the slightest chance of their British passports not being honoured.
Some of them are in a very anomalous position, especially the farmers. As many hon. Members know, a lot of British farmers in Kenya are being bought out on the 400,000 acre scheme—a scheme agreed between the British and Kenya Governments. They are bought out in sterling, so they can retire here. We can now have a farmer, who has devoted his life and skill building up Kenya, and who has saved up enough capital to retire here under a scheme agreed by the British and the Kenya Governments, being prevented from doing so by the British Government. A citizen like that would be no burden at all, but an asset to this country.
I hope that I have brought home the fact that here we have a class of British citizens who have themselves forged a deliberate and positive link with this country, and in that way have put themselves in a quite different category from others affected by this Bill. I therefore hope that the Home Secretary will see his way to accepting this Amendment and putting the matter right.

6.30 p.m.

Dr. Hugh Gray: I hope to persuade the Minister, even at this late stage, substantially to alter Clause 1. I put to him a consideration which I do not think has yet been put forward, the general effect which it will have on the future of the Commonwealth itself. This has been shown by the reactions of the Indian Government. Not only have the Indian Government refused to accept people from Kenya with United Kingdom passports, for residence, but they have suggested that they will take retaliatory action against us, and very rightly. At


the moment we can enter India without let or hindrance. Unlike aliens, we do not have to register with the police, but the Indian Government are at this moment considering withdrawing those privileges and other privileges will similarly be withdrawn from British citizens by other Commonwealth Governments.
Widespread indignation will sweep through all Commonwealth countries as the racial nature of this legislation becomes ever more widely known. Even we in this country will suffer because Clause 1 puts a stick into the hand of white power and a stick into the hand of black power. Is there not something ironic about a Socialist Minister who rests racialist legislation on the basis of the hereditary principle? We know why this criterion has been chosen—it is to exclude Asians. How can my right hon. Friend justify this?
I admit that there is necessity to introduce a phased immigration policy, but my right hon. Friend should do this on criteria which apply to all, white, black or brown. If many in this country do not think this is racial legislation and accept the partial and unconvincing arguments put forward for it, I can assure my right hon. Friend that that will not be accepted in India, in Pakistan, or any country where Asians live. We are about to put a piece of racialist legislation on the Statute Book. I am ashamed to belong to a party the Government of which does this. That is why I voted against Second Reading last night and why I shall vote against the Government tonight unless my right hon. Friend broadens the criteria in such a way that he produces nondiscriminatory grounds for exclusion. We all know what those grounds are. For example, some people are prevented by lack of money from buying something, but they may acquire money. That is non-discriminatory, but one cannot acquire a British father or a grandfather.
British passports were given to these Asians by a Conservative Government, but we cannot shuffle off our responsibility. l. subscribe, as I believe all hon. Member3 do, to the consensual nature of Government. We accept certain responsibilities which, if hon. Members opposite were to win the next election, they would inherit just as we inherited theirs. We have obligations and responsibilities to

all who hold British passports. As one who has worked for the International Refugee Organisation I cannot face the situation in which holders of British passports will have nowhere to go. The point put forward by the Leader of the Liberal Party has not been answered.

Mr. John Lee: I endorse the sentiments my hon. Friend is expressing, but the position is even worse. Did we not even hang a man at the end of the war on the basis of a defective passport?

Dr. Gray: That is a question of the wider implications and responsibilities. I accept that the fact that a man holds a British passport means that he will be entitled to protection by Her Majesty's Government, but that protection will be given only outside this country unless the Minister clarifies the matter still further. We cannot face a situation in which people with British passports are homeless. Ultimately this country must be their home even if they are delayed in taking up residence in it. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will reply fully to this point.
I accept that he does not say that Clause 1 is discriminatory from the racialist point of view, but I do and so do thousands of people in this country. I can assure them that millions throughout the Commonwealth do. I hope that he will think again and will phase immigration, control it and do what he likes but on the basis of impartial criteria which cannot be challenged as I challenge it and as thousands will challenge it. I was pleased to vote in the company of Liberals and Conservatives last night. Members of all parties will regret it if for the first time in Parliament we put a piece of racialist legislation on to our Statute Book.

Mr. Gurden: Britain has been criticised both at home and abroad, while under Conservative Governments and now under a Socialist Government, for bringing in control of immigrants. Among the foremost of our critics in the Commonwealth have been such countries as India and Pakistan. Here is a chance for the Indians to show that they are prepared to help and that they really meant what they said about their principles concerning immigration. They can


help in this situation far more than we can.
One wonders what will be the feelings of the people in Kenya when they realise that they are being thrown out and, as some hon. Members have said, are being made stateless persons. If any responsibility rests on any country for that I should have thought it is on such countries as India. [An HON. MEMBER: "The British."] That is a matter of opinion but I should have thought that if there are people of Indian extraction it is—

Mr. Ivor Richard: Why not say "race"? Why not come out with it?

Mr. Gurden: This is what Kenya is saying—that it is for her to look after her people and others can become stateless. On the admission of the mover of this Amendment, it is a wrecking Amendment. The right hon. Member said so and he said that it could involve 600 million people who would have the right to come here. He was given the answer to the Amendment last night. From the speeches we have heard there seems to be nothing like a representation of the vote that was taken last night being expressed in the Committee today. There were six to one in favour of the Bill last night. but the majority of hon. Members who have spoken and of those present now voted against the Bill on Second Reading. Clearly the vote last night, from my experience, represents exactly what the people of the country want. More than six to one of the people are in favour of this Bill and of the control of immigration.

Mr. Hirst: Eighty per cent.

Mr. Gurden: I accept that.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Would it not be fair to say that the majority of people in the county are torn in two differing directions over this Bill and, because of the lack of a moral lead on the issue from the leaders of either of the major parties—I except the Liberals they remain in a state of confusion?

Mr. Gurden: No, I do not accept that at all. From my postbag and most people to whom I have spoken—Birmingham M.P.s will know this well—the

majority of people are certainly in favour of this Bill and in favour of the control of immigration.

Mr. James Johnson: It is not a matter of an open door policy for 700 million, nor yet of a completely closed door. We are faced with a so-called flexible policy, but we know that in the near future thousands will be jobless but will have no legal right to stay in the land of their birth. Exactly what is the hon. Member's view on that?

Mr. Gurden: I am speaking to the Amendment.

Mr. James Johnson: It arises on the Amendment.

Mr. Gurden: The Amendment covers the whole Commonwealth, 600 million people. The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said that.
The majority of people in this country realise that there will be some hardship, and there will be people for whom we have to be sorry. There are a lot more people in the world I am very sorry for. I am terribly sorry for the people of Vietnam and for others. But I have a responsibility to my constituents. This is where it all starts. The question is whether I have first responsibility to my constituents and the people of this country or to hard-done-by people in Kenya; and there is the further question whether, if anyone should help them out, it should be the Kenyan Government or the Indian Government.

Mr. Christopher Price: Mr. Christopher Price (Birmingham, Perry Barr) rose—

Mr. Gurden: No. I have given way a good deal. The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own speech. He will not be restricted by his Whips. I do not suppose that the Closure will be moved. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am speaking for the people of Birmingham and the vast majority of people in this country.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that he has a responsibility also to white people in Kenya whose fathers or grandfathers happened to be born in this country?

Mr. Gurden: That may well be, but we have got this overall problem.

Mr. Richard: Why?

Mr. Gurden: If, by chance, some white people are caught by the Bill, so be it. We cannot help it. Ours is an overcrowded country, and we have had too many immigrants already.

Mr. Hirst: Far too many.

Mr. Gurden: I say this for the mover of the Amendment, the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). As far as or he can see, he has been consistent right from 1961 when the first control was considered. By Amendment No. 10, he wants exactly what he wanted then, a completely open door for 600 million people to come to this country. He and all the Liberals, and nearly all the Socialists, voted for just that, the door wide open for more than 600 million people.

Mr. David Steel: Mr. David Steel rose—

Mr. Gurden: No.

Mr. Steel: Since the hon. Gentleman has attacked me—

Mr. Gurden: I shall not give way. I am talking about the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment.
What I am sayinig is in some measure in support of what the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) said about dispersal. We could probably take some of these people from Kenya if there were an arrangement for dispersal, if there were a condition that some of them should go to places where there are no immigrants now. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has always taken a consistent line. He put to the Government that it would be an infinitesimal number of people to take in—why could not we do it? He said that France had taken in a million people. Because of his ideas, Britain, too, has taken in a million people. Perhaps France had now said that it has enough. I say that Britain has enough.
If these people were going into the areas where there are no immigrants at present, it would be a different matter, but everyone knows that they would come to the already overcrowded areas, overcrowded with immigrants, where the education system is under great strain, where all the social services are under

great strain, and where the housing situation is exceptionally serious. If they were allowed in, these immigrants about whom we are talking would go to areas where there is the greatest slum clearance problem ever.
6.45 p.m.
Birmingham is in the forefront on this problem. Everyone acknowledges that. Birmingham has the finest record in new house building of all cities and towns in the country. Last year, Birmingham had a record number of houses built and a record slum clearance achievement, in spite of the immigrant problem which we have had. It is not for me to discuss the housing of immigrants at length on this Amendment, but I remind the Committee that the time would soon come when these immigrants would be entitled to move into our council houses. The strain would then be upon us.
If the Home Secretary had not the courage to bring in the Bill, all the efforts of Birmingham in education and housing would count for nothing. We should be impossibly overcrowded. Let us face it. These people are not going to Orkney and Shetland. They would go to Birmingham, Wolverhampton and other overcrowded places which are already under great strain.
I congratulate the Home Secretary. We know that he will not have to give way to the Amendment. This is just where the Liberals are inconsistent. They now say that they agree that there has to be some sort of control. It is the first time we have heard it. They now say that they recognise the problem and admit there must be some control. Does the hon. Gentleman want me to give way now?

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Gentleman must have heard my right hon. Friend say that the purpose of the Amendment was to have the very useful debate which we are now having, and we do not intend to divide the Committee on it.

Mr. Gurden: Of course. That is why it is a lot of nonsense. It is wasting the time of the Committee. That was the point I made. This is yesterday's debate all over again. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that it was a wrecking Amendment. I am pointing out that by six to one the House has already given a decision on this question. Therefore, there


is no point in taking up the time of the Committee on it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then sit down."] It is time that somebody spent a few minutes supporting the Government for what they are attempting to do. We see all the opponents of the Bill sitting there, but they ignore popular opinion and the opinion of their colleagues—about 250 of them who went into the Lobby in favour of the Bill last night. The Home Secretary has been very courageous in bringing the Bill to the House. It is more than his predecessor had the courage to do.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: We are told that, if we accept the Amendment, we put ourselves at risk of allowing into this country 600 million people. We are told, also, that, if we reject the Clause, we put ourselves at risk of allowing into this country 1 million people. Both those figures are misleading in this discussion. The discussion is about a particular problem in a particular area of the world. It is about Kenya and Kenya's problems, and it is not really relevant to any other problem anywhere else in the world, not even in the neighbouring African territories.
The problem which Kenya faces, and with which it is dealing by its legislation, which has been rightly criticised, is that there are many urban Africans unemployed and, in order to make sure that they are given jobs, the policy has been adopted of discriminating against non-citizens—I emphasise the term "non-citizens "—who have got jobs. It is therefore a matter for comment, but it is peculiar to Kenya. The same problem does not exist in Uganda or Tanzania.
We are therefore talking about the Asian problem in Kenya. We are also talking about a specific part of that problem, the rate of flow of Asian immigrants from Kenya into this country. We are not talking about the numbers. We could absorb the total numbers, but we could not do so all at once. That was accepted by the Government when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that what we want to do is to form a queue. They can all come, but at a rate which will be manageable.
The problem admittedly required some legislation to restrict and regulate the flow, but it has not been faced properly

in the Bill. The Amendment at least has this to be said for it: it applies the same criteria to both coloured and white members of the Commonwealth. All of us know, whatever we say, that the reason the Clause is phrased as it is that we want to honour our commitment to white Kenyans and do not want to honour it to coloured Kenyan Asians. That is the most repulsive part of the Bill.
I absolutely accept that my right hon. Friend, and even more my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is known for his ardent espousal of the cause of coloured people, are not racialist in intent. But what is the effect? Racial prejudice is more a matter of presentation than reality—to use my right hon. Friend's words. We all know that there is little that calls for fear or discrimination racially. It is all a matter of the psychology of the situation, and that is what is so repugnant about the Bill.
Although there may be a civilised reason why we should discriminate in favour of those who, again in my right hon. Friend's words, have a substantial connection with this country, that civilised reason is meaningless if one is a poor coloured immigrant in this country or a poor Asian in Kenya. It simply means that the white man is rigging it again for himself. We may not be very much concerned about the effect in Kenya, but we should be concerned about the effect in this country.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) referred to the number of coloured immigrants in this country. Whether he likes it or not, they are citizens of this country; they have rights here. Anyone who has seen the reaction of some of the members of that community who feel themselves oppressed, denied expression of their views, wanting to use violence to get what they conceive to be their rights, must have a concern for the racial feeling that might be generated by the Bill, and that is what concerns me most.
We could have dealt with the problem in a way that would not have been offensive if we had not been committed to the concept of a figure for a quota. In any case, the figure is completely illusory. If the Bill becomes law by Friday, within a week there will be 1,500 heads of households in Kenya who will want to come


into this country. What we face is a panic flow. It is not related to need or the number of people who have been dispossessed of jobs, because so far that number is considerably less than the 6,000 who could come in on an annual quota, and certainly considerably less than the 13,000 who came in last year.
We are concerned with a panic fear that they will not be able to enter this country if anything goes wrong in Kenya, and the panic will continue after the Bill becomes law. Everybody will want to get his name on the quota straight away, and the quota will be filled within a week. What is to happen then if the Under-Secretary's assurance tonight is taken at its face value? What is to happen the first time the Kenya Government extends the orders which have been made eider the Kenya Immigration Act, the first time that more people are displaced and told to leave Kenya? If we honour the assurance given tonight they will have to be added to the 1,500. If the Government had said, "We must regulate the flow but shall take all those in need, all those who have been dispossessed of jobs or thrown out of the country, as their need is made evident", there would not have been a quota, and all the entry would have been taken up by those whose need was really desperate.
People will be thrown out of Kenya while holding British passports, and will have nowhere else to go. Horror should afflict the mind of every responsible Member to think that there will be people trying to come to this country with British passports who have been created stateless. That is what they really are. I know that technically and legally they are not stateless, but unless one has the rights of nationality what does nationality count for? If one cannot live and work in the area that has given one nationality, what does it mean that one has been given that empty legal fiction?
Therefore, we should try to phase the flow according to the rate at which Kenyanisation takes place. I have been told today in this House that that would be an open invitation to Jomo Kenyatta to throw out all the Asian Kenyans tomorrow, and that we should simply have the uncontrolled flow again. I take the point. It is a risk, but not a real risk. The Kenya Government gave two

years in which any Asian could have applied for citizenship, and he could have got citizenship by simply applying for it in that first two years.

Mr. Paget: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is mistaken. There are over 20,000 at present who applied within those two years and still have not been granted citizenship.

Mr. Lyon: But have not been refused it. They have not yet been accepted, but no conditions were laid down for the application. There are stringent conditions now, and there is a discretionary power to refuse citizenship. I accept that if all the 250,000 Asians in Kenya had applied in the first two years the policy of the Kenya Government might have been different. But the fact was that they were prepared to take anyone, and anyone who became a Kenyan citizen would not be dispossessed of his job under the Kenya Immigration Act or the Trade Licensing Act. He would have all the rights of any African Kenyan because he was a citizen.
Jomo Kenyatta and the Kenya Government need the services of the Asian community, and they want to hold on to those services as long as they consider it desirable to do so. I accept that they will phase out the Asian community as the African community comes along with both education and skill to take over. But they do not want that to happen tomorrow because they know that the African community is not yet ready. It must be a process of time.
Examining the categories of jobs in the Immigration Act, one recognises that some will not become subject to the Act for a very long time. An order has to be made in each case and it is clear that orders will not be made to expel professional men—doctors and lawyers and so on—within the foreseeable future because there are not enough African doctors and lawyers to take their place.
7.0 p.m.
Kenya needs these skilled citizens and will not expel them straight away. She has begun in a very small way, despite the suggestions made today, with semiskilled and unskilled workers—typists, clerks and so on. It is true that this will create considerable difficulties in the next few months, but I heard from the Asian


delegates who are in this country that they estimate that about 7,000 people will be affected in this category in the next 12 months. That number is not greatly in excess of what is being proposed as a quota for this coming year.
The likelihood is that the pattern will increase in crescendo as more and more Africans obtain qualifications and the money to take over jobs occupied by Asians. The phasing, therefore, is largely determined by the needs of Kenya as the Kenya Government see them, and it is unlikely that, even if we gave an assurance that anyone with a British passport and who is dispossessed of his job can come here, President Kenyatta would act precipitately and expel all the Asians there and then. It is likely that he would keep their services as long as possible.
But such an assurance would get rid of the panic flow because it would give assurance to the Asian community that they would not, as they fear at the moment, be caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, being expelled from their jobs but still unable, under the quota, to come here, and unable to go to India and Pakistan, where they have no more substantial connection than with people in this country. These people were born in Kenya as were their fathers and they have lived there all their lives. They are being left rootless and stateless and we could not in the eyes of the world deny them entry.
We know that we could not, so why not say so now and get rid of the pathetic fear in the Asian community? Why not give the explicit assurance I asked for? I do not think that there is danger in doing so. If there is, I am willing to risk it. If the flow became much greater than expected, we could cut down the vouchers issued to other Commonwealth citizens and that in itself would make leeway between what we hoped for and what became reality. But we would eradicate the fear which exists among 150,000 people and that is what I want.

Sir D. Glover: We have listened to thoughtful speeches from people speaking on a subject about which they are deeply concerned emotionally. I shall have to be rather critical of the Home Secretary and his colleagues. I think that this Bill is ill-advised and was hastily thought up.

It did not have a long enough period of gestation and was brought to fruition before it had been properly thought out in the Home Office.
At the same time, I have a good deal of sympathy with the Home Secretary because he had a problem. He fell and, having fallen, produced this Bill. But I have far more criticism of right hon. Gentlemen who have the honour to grace the Front Bench on this side. There was no necessity for them to encourage the breaking of Britain's pledged word. If a Government wish to enter upon such a course of action, there is no reason why the Opposition should aid and abet them in so doing.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) can wriggle and squirm as hard as he likes but there is no doubt that, in 1963, these Asians and the white community in Kenya were given a clear understanding that, because of the difficulties in Kenya, their problems would be taken care of. I am glad that, with the exception of my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, no one speaking from the Front Benches has tried to evade the issue. They have all made it clear that what this Bill is doing is breaking Britain's pledged word. It has been said that the vote of 372 to 62 in favour of this Bill shows that the nation is behind us. I am ashamed to think that the nation should take pride in breaking Britain's pledged word.
I accept that there are many difficult problems, and one should have a great deal of sympathy for the Home Secretary in his very difficult position. But the fact remains—and let us be clear about it—that in 1963 the position was very different from what it is now. It was not so long after Mau Mau. When I was in Kenya in 1963, leading a delegation to Mauritius, it was still a phenomenon that Jomo Kenyatta was a responsible statesman. Everyone had thought until then that he had cloven hooves and horns growing from his head. I am talking here not only about the Kenya farmers but about the High Commission officials and the British civil servants there at the time.
Let us be honest and admit that there is a great deal of racialism in this House, in this country, in Kenya, in India and in almost every country in the world, and we shall not get very far by making


either a virtue or a sin of it. I myself would take a strong line on the increase in immigration into this country, other things being equal. I am prepared to accept that the Home Secretary, in dealing with this problem, might have severely to curb the present quotas from elsewhere to allow us to carry out an obligation we solemnly undertook.
In 1963, we recognised the problems causing anxiety to whites and Asians in Kenya about independence, and to remove their fears we said that we would let them retain their United Kingdom passports. We must accept that many things flowed from that decision. Suppose that it had not been taken and I were an Asian. I would have gone to get a Kenya passport the very day it became a legal document. But the United Kingdom Government give me an alternative, so what do I do? I delay. I weigh up the pros and cons, trying to find out how the situation is developing in Kenya. But when the Kenya Government suddenly take steps against my community, the United Kingdom Government react in this way and I am naked before the cold east wind.
This is exactly what has happened to the Asian community. If they had not been given those assurances in 1963, there would not be nearly as many holding United Kingdom passports today. They would be Kenya citizens. [Interruption.] It is no use thinking that this House can suddenly slough off this responsibility. One of the great problems—and I am surprised that no lawyer has spoken of it is that contracts are enforced when one does not like the bargain. One does not need a law of contract when both people are in agreement; that can be done on the "old boy" net. It is when one does not like it, when it is to one's disadvantage, when it embarrasses one, when it causes one financial loss, that one needs the law of contract.
Let us make no bones about it. The right hon. Gentleman is welshing on his contract. [Interruption.] It is a United Kingdom contract. I said that I have a lot of sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman, but he is operating all the levers at the moment. I am not hostile to him; I have a great affection for him. This is what is happening and it all stems from the original decision. My right hon. Friend the Member for

Streatham was perfectly right, and the British Government were perfectly right in 1963 to give these particular assurances. There was a promise. There had been an area of land in Africa, torn with civil war and atrocities, with great fear and unease, and I very much doubt if the Kenya nation would have got off the ground in the way that it has done if it had not been for the assurances given by my right hon. Friend and the then Conservative Government.—[Interruption.]
They did give them in 1963. I know that my right hon. Friend now says he did not. All that I say is that no one who has spoken from either Front Bench during the debate makes the slightest attempt to avoid the implication that there was this obligation. This is what we are debating in this Amendment. Under normal circumstances I am not a believer in an open-door policy for immigrants. I believe in a pretty tight policy. I believe that this country, with its size and its problems, has been pretty generous in the last 10 years in the number of immigrants that it has allowed in. They take time to settle down and bed in. As the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) said, the people from Kenya would bed in and "gel" into our community much more easily than some of those from elsewhere.
I am a believer in a strong policy for controlling immigration, but when one has a situation in which one is taking into this country people to whom one does not have the kind of obligation that one has to another group of people, and taking them at the rate of 50,000 or 60,000 a year—and we are talking of a figure of 60,000 to 80,000 and not more—then I believe that if necessary there should be a complete clamp-down on all immigrants from elsewhere. This would allow the country to fulfil its obligations to those Asians in Kenya to whom it gave a firm commitment.
I hope that even now the Home Secretary will recognise that it is not sufficient to talk about 1,500 and to allow those from India, Pakistan and the West Indies to come in on that quota. Politics come into this, and now the British and Kenya Governments are trying to play one off against the other. The Kenya Government will try to produce more Asians who want to emigrate, to try to force the right hon. Gentleman's quota up.


The more he keeps it down, the more difficult will be the problem for those Asians in Kenya.
7.15 p.m.
The time has come for the Government to send the Colonial Secretary out to say to the Kenya Government, quite bluntly, that unless we can sit round the table and work out an agreed policy, we will not send any more aid to the Kenya Government. We are being held to ransom by the Kenya Government, who incidentally are probably making the biggest mistake of any nation in Africa in trying to get rid of the most knowledgeable and skilful element in their population. Anything that we can do to slow down that exodus must be to the benefit of Kenya.
This cannot be done on the basis of the Asians in Kenya being made stateless citizens. The only way is to have a conference, even now, between the two Governments, with the real threat that aid will be withdrawn unless a more equitable mood is reached, and the Kenya Government should assure us that there will be no turning these people into stateless individuals, but that instead their future will be safeguarded. If the right hon. Gentleman can give me an assurance to that effect at the end of this debate, despite the fact that I voted against the Bill last night, and considered myself thoroughly justified in doing so, I would be prepared to withdraw my objections to the Bill.

Mr. James Johnson: I wish to intervene only briefly since most of what I wanted to say has been said very well already, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). I trust that the Minister will at once reject the suggestions that have been made by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), that an attempt should be made to blackmail Kenya, saying that we will give the country no aid unless it changes its policy. I disown that immediately.
As to my hon. Friend's speech, he underestimates the depth of African nationalism. I have worked in Kenya with many men who are now Ministers. I have been down the line, organising black workers in trade unions. There is no doubt that this wave of African

nationalism is the prominent motive in all their actions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Racialism."] I stick to nationalism. These are my friends and I am talking about African nationalism. Whatever anyone might like to think, there is a strong wave of African nationalism. We have been saying that these Kenya Asians are not African nationals but are United Kingdom nationals with United Kingdom passports.
Kenya is an emergent nation with tens of thousands of men unemployed, walking the streets of Nairobi. Their leaders want to advance these men socially, economically, technologically. Looking at the past history of Kenya, there is no doubt that there is left a legacy of ill-feeling between African workers and middle-belt Asians in commerce. I will not talk about Asians and how they behaved in Kikuyu land or anywhere else in Kenya. There is no doubt that between the whites in the top belt, the Asians in the middle belt and the Africans at the bottom—for example 85 per cent. or more of the Civil Service at the lower level is made up of Africans compared with 10 per cent. Asians and 5 per cent. whites—there is left a legacy beyond what I would term African nationalism, a natural desire on the part of Africans to advance quickly their own people.
The Asians are in a pitiful state. They have United Kingdom passports. We know that those who have no work permits and hence no jobs will be given from 1st March to 30th June to pack up and leave. We have seen documents to this effect. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) produced a form of which I have a copy. I caution my hon. Friends that the intensity of African nationalism is impossible to measure. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been asked by hon. Members opposite to adopt an open-door policy. There is no doubt that if the quota goes up from 1,500 to 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, 8,000 or 10,000, the African leaders will seize the opportunity of filling it. I want, however, a quota of more than 1,500; we should be more flexible. But we must be very careful about making demands of the Minister for an open-door policy.
What do we do with those who have lost their jobs and go to the Government office in Nairobi with their form, and


they are then told that they must leave by 30th June and to tidy up their affairs at the earliest possible moment? I want the Minister to face this, because it is the stark, naked, cold fact of the situation. I have met some of my old Asian friends with whom I have stayed in Kenya in the past—Asian lawyers, men of the highest calibre, capacity and integrity. At the moment, they are quite well off financially. I have heard it said in this debate that Asian lawyers, doctors and other professional men will have a place in the Kenya economy. For how long? They themselves do not think that they will have a place in the economy for very long. One to whom I spoke yesterday said, "Perhaps I shall have my Asian clientele for two years. After that I will be in the same boat as the so-called unskilled workers, mechanics, fitters, carpenters and joiners who are now asked to leave by 30th June.
I asked the Minister, whom I know to be a humane man, to address himself to this matter. We asked the Under-Secretary of State earlier in this debate what would happen if Asian mechanics or joiners with no jobs were allowed to stay no longer. They will be taken to the courts in Nairobi and fined thousands of shillings and later expelled. If they come to London, what do we do with them? Do we send them back? I certainly hope not. But we are faced with a dilemma. If they can come here, is the quota to be 5,000, 8,000 or 10,000? We are in a cleft stick. This is a unique situation, one which we have never faced before. I support my Government on this matter. We are in this unique position after a shrinking Empire, to use an old-fashioned term, or as the mother of the Commonwealth, to use a modern term, faced with these uncashed cheques left as a legacy by the Conservative Party opposite when in power.
We must somehow solve this problem. The Minister has a most thankless task—I will not say an impossible task. He has my support—I will not say he has only my sympathy—and I shall watch carefully to see how he faces this awful job of helping these homeless. jobless, stateless men and their families who will undoubtedly join us in the coming years in ever-increasing numbers.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: The discussion on these Amendments is

the kind of discussion about which naturally hon. Members on both sides of the Committee feel very emotional. That is right and proper, because we are discussing principles. This matter cuts right across both parties. It is important that we should try to keep an even balance between heart and head. We should not do an ostrich act. We should face certain facts squarely and with reality, however unpleasant they may be.
Although I think that this legislation has been introduced with a certain amount of what I might almost call indecent haste, and although I am prepared to blame the Government for a good many things, I am bound to say in all fairness to the Home Secretary that I cannot find it in my heart to blame him or his colleagues for this situation. I do not think that it was the Government who brought on this situation. Still less do I think that it was brought on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and others, as has been alleged by hon. Members opposite; they at least foresaw what was coming.
As the Home Secretary properly said yesterday, there is a degree of Africanisation going on in Kenya which has brought a problem which was originally on the horizon but which is now uncomfortably on our doorstep. Anyone who knows anything about Africa knows that the Indians are not popular in Africa. Anyone who knows anything about Africa knows exactly why they are not popular in Africa. It is not unnatural or surprising that the Indians should be very anxious about what I might call the mounting weight of legislation which is gradually being passed in Kenya against them; and, of course, they want to get out.
I must be fair about this and have no cant: this is racialism, not by Europeans against Africans, but by Africans against Asians. It is curious that the critics of racialism and of any form of racial discrimination by Europeans against Africans should be so singularly silent on this issue. I admit that President Kenyatta, as the head of a sovereign state, is perfectly entitled to undertake whatever policy he likes. Equally, those who put their hand on their heart and say that it is frightful


that people who possess a United Kingdom passport cannot have unrestricted access to Great Britain—and I have a great deal of sympathy with their view—were also singularly silent when, under the Southern Rhodesia Act, Rhodesians with a United Kingdom passport were denied unrestricted entry to this country. What is fair for one is fair for the other. Do not let us have too much one-sided cant on this score.
The second fact which we must face, whether we like it or not—and I thought that the Home Secretary faced it very well yesterday—is that we must limit the inflow of immigrants to a number which can be absorbed within our community. One can argue all night and for many nights about what that number should be. My view is that the present numbers have reached very dangerous proportions. I remember from my school days that if one mixed two chemical substances in the wrong proportions in a glass container there was an explosion. I am not sure that we are not in great danger of putting a time bomb into our national life which, since the racial element is concentrated in certain areas, may well explode—I do not know when, perhaps in ten, twenty or thirty years' time. We must be very careful about this.
Like every hon. Member, I am unhappy about the pledge either given or implied to Asians at the time of the Kenya Act. The difficulty is that we gave a pledge and I do not see how, within all the reasons of practical application, it can be honoured.

Mr. Paget: Why?

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I shall say why.
The best analogy was that used by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) about the bank. After all, if one opens an account at a bank one is given a cheque book—

Mr. Paget: Will the hon. Gentleman give way for a minute?

7.30 p.m.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Not at the moment. Let me finish the argument. If one opens an account at a bank one is given a cheque book and a cheque is a pledge by the bank that one can draw

from the bank up to the total of the amount one has put into it, but if all the clients having accounts at that bank queued up in a matter of two or three days to write all the cheques in their cheque books and to use up all the money in their accounts there would be a run on the bank and the bank could not honour the pledge. That is the position, I think, that we have got into here—quite unconsciously, because nobody in 1963 envisaged this particular situation arising.

Mr. Paget: Why does the hon. Gentleman say we have got into a position we cannot meet? France took 1 million and prospered, Germany took 1 million and prospered, Israel took 1½ million. We could be taking one refugee for every 500 of us.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Personally I do not think the comparison with France or Germany is right—for a number of reasons which it would be out of order to go into in this case; but both those countries are physically much larger than ours. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge we have already taken over 1 million immigrants—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It may be a good deal more; I do not know what the figures are. However, I do not think our record since the war could be bettered by anybody. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman's analogy is a very good one.
Let me come to the figures which the Home Secretary gave yesterday. He said he thought that those who were in the queue were 200,000. That was the figure he gave. If 1,500 come per year, we have to multiply that figure by five, roughly, to include the dependants, and that would come to about 6,000. Is that not right?

Mr. Ennals: It includes dependants. The 200,000 includes all those in East Africa and that includes not only heads of households but dependants.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: It includes the dependants?

Mr. Ennals: Indeed.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: If it is suggested that we have 1,500 a year we have to multiply that by—call it five—to include the dependants. That would be right. would it not?

Mr. Ennals: By nodding my head I did not necessarily want to agree that we must multiply by five, but it certainly means three or four dependants per household on the average.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Call it four. That is 6,000. Even on that basis it would take a long time to take in all those waiting in the queue, given the birth rate and everything else—

Mr. Iremonger: Thirty-five years.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: —35 years, as my hon. Friend says. To double the quota from 1,500 to 3,000 would bring it down to 15 years or so. I am quite prepared to accept that, but it does seem to me almost unreal in relation to the problem. In addition, the right hon. Gentleman said, there were another 1 million potentially entitled to come, should circumstances work out that way. So I think we have got to admit we have a problem which is almost insoluble.
It is all very well to say that none of these millions would come and that conditions in their own countries will be stable. But are they going to be? Who can guess what will happen in the next two or three years in Mauritius? I do not know. I would have thought the Far East unpredictable. Who can say what will happen in Malaysia and Singapore where there are very large numbers of Chinese—or Hong Kong—where there are people who are perfectly entitled to United Kingdom passports.

Mr. David Steel: No.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: They certainly would be. This is the problem we have simply got to face it. If we have to deal with numbers potentially of that size I think the dilemma is frightful.
I have the greatest sympathy with the Home Secretary in the dilemma with which he is faced and I think that this Bill is really the lesser of two evils. I do not think it is practically possible to exclude all the other sources of immigration in order to deal with the numbers of Asians coming from Kenya. Purely on the numbers we can absorb, could we take any more than what the right hon. Gentleman says, plus the contingency of others coming, and plus those coming in through the normal quota? There

fore, we have to grasp the nettle, and say that, for the sake of the future demographic and social problems of this country, immigration must be restricted. We must try to treat individual cases of Asians in Kenya with as much compassion as we can, but I support the right hon. Gentleman. This is a terrible dilemma, and I think he has taken the course which is the lesser of two evils.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in answering questions after making his announcement last week, said that this Bill was unique and without precedent. I agree with him, and for me, too, this Bill has been without precedent, because for the first time since I entered the House I found myself in the position of having deliberately to withhold my support of this Government. That, I believe, was the least, the minimum, my conscience allowed me to do.
It reminds me, if I may be allowed to retrospect a little, of the first occasion when I had the privilege of addressing the House of Commons. It was on the death penalty Bill. I said—and I think that this part of what I said, at least, commanded the general support of the House—that it was at least the duty of those who come here not blindly to follow what public opinion might for the time being think to be right, but to follow their own conscience.
Why did I take this course? I was one of those who opposed the 1962 Bill, like, indeed, the majority of members of my own party. I did so not for the same reasons as those of Hugh Gaitskell, much as I admired him. I did so for three reasons: first, because I believed it was a Measure introduced rather under the pressure of events than carefully thought out and anticipated; secondly, because I believed that it was introduced without proper consultation with the Commonwealth; and thirdly, because I believed that whatever may have been the intentions of those who introduced it, it was a Bill which gave the impression of being racialist because it allowed in people from Eire and did not allow in people from the Commonwealth.
When I examined this Bill, every single one of those criticisms I found could be applied to this Bill as well, and other criticisms in addition. When I say that,


one criticism which is in my mind on this Bill is that it appears to be racialist, let me say at once, and entirely freely, that I do not suggest for one moment that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend or of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to introduce a racialist Measure. Not for one moment. I know them far too well for that.
Here is a Bill which says in terms that people whose families emigrated from this country perhaps three-quarters of a century or a century ago will be allowed into the country without any restriction, but that those whose families did not emigrate from this country will not be allowed in except under the controls of the 1962 Act. There may have been Asians and Africans who were born in this country within the last 100 years and who will be affected by the Act when it becomes law, but those living in Kenya cannot but see that provision as one to allow in the white population of Kenya and to keep out the coloured population. Whatever the intention of my right hon. Friend, that is how it will appear to them and, moreover, that is how it will appear to the Government of Kenya.
Let me follow that up for a moment. Rather to the surprise of many right hon. and hon. Members, after we released Mr. Kenyatta from his internment and he became head of the new State of Kenya, his displayed a remarkable generosity of spirit to the European population. Many of us feared that Kenyanisation or Africanisation would embrace the Europeans in Kenya. We found our fears dispelled by his actions. Can we be sure that will continue if we impose a bar upon those who have been and whose families have been living in Kenya for 75 or 100 years simply because they are coloured rather than white? Can we be sure that the policies which we will be embarking upon are not policies which will induce the Government of Kenya to pursue their Kenyanisation not merely against the Asians there but against the Europeans as well.
In September, 1965, I had the great privilege of going to Nairobi to represent an Asian in litigation. As my junior counsel, I had an Asian who is an English barrister and a member of my

own Inn. My client was an Asian doctor. I spent a week there. I was treated by my client, his family and his friends not as a member of another race but as a friend and with the greatest hospitality. They did not look askance at me because of the colour of my skin or my race. Equally, I hope that no one in this country will look askance at them in their time of need for that reason or that it will even be thought that we are doing so. Whatever our motives and intentions may be, it cannot be out of the minds of other members of the Commonwealth that that is the real basis for what we are doing in this Bill.
I listened with great interest to the eloquent and pertinent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell), in which he asked a number of questions. I have said that I am not against control, but I believe that control has to be justified. It must be justified in circumstances of this kind when what we are doing is unique and without precedent and will deprive citizens of cur own country of their right to enter it.
7.45 p.m.
I want to know whether the facts given by my hon. Friend are right. Is it true that, up to a day or two ago, there were likely to be only some 40,000 people affected by this Measure? If it is true, within the last day or two, probably a fifth of those entitled to come here have arrived, assuming that Press reports are right when they say that heads of families are arriving at the rate of 2,000 a day.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) spoke yesterday about a run on a bank. Other hon. Members have used similar language. In my experience, a run on a bank is more likely if the bank says that it will pay out by small instalments each week or each month rather than if it keeps a completely open door.
I want to know whether the facts really are as my hon. Friend the Member for Southall said. If they are not, what are they? I waited throughout the whole debate yesterday to hear those facts, and I did not hear them. If I had heard them, it may be that I should not have taken the course that I did.

Mr. Callaghan: What are the facts that my hon. and learned Friend wants, apart from the figures? What else is it that was not answered and to which he is now referring?

Mr. Silkin: It was said in the debate by my right hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that in East Africa there are about 200,000 people who may be affected and that in the world there are about a million. We did not learn that last week. If we did, I do not know what our information services can be like. It is not because of that that we have to pass this Measure into law between Tuesday and Thursday of this week. It is because of something else. My right hon. Friend said last week that it is because of the inflow of 7,000 Asians in a period of three months, but is that the reason for introducing the Bill at this time in such a hurry, or is it something more than that?
When my right hon. Friend tells the Committee that there are likely to be only some 40,000 people who are likely to want to come, of whom some 5,000 or more heads of families might have arrived here before the Bill becomes law, and when one multiplies that by four to arrive at the probable number already here, I want to know what is the justification for the Bill.
My right hon. Friend knows that we are breaking a pledge and that we need the strongest possible grounds for doing so. He said last week that there would be a limit of 1,500 in each year. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said today that that is a flexible figure. I hope that he is right. When my right hon. Friend winds up the debate, I hope that he will say once and for all that the figure has gone and that we will not set a numerical limit upon the people who are to be allowed in, but that we will treat every case on its merits and on its needs.
I do not suggest for a moment that we should lot have regulation and control, but if my right hon. Friend is able to say that every case will be looked at according to its merits and needs when deciding whether citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies are allowed into what they regard as their own country, with no regard for the figures,

I for one will be prepared to take a very different attitude to the Third Reading of this Bill from that which I took to its Second Reading.

Mr. Callaghan: I understand that there are a number of hon. Members who wish to speak, so I will say why I speak now. First, we know that there is not to be, a: any rate on the part of the movers of the Amendment, a vote. Therefore, it is appropriate that I should state the position. Although the movers of the Amendment may not divide the Committee, of course, others may do so.
Secondly, it is right that I should speak now, because, with respect to those hon. Members who have spoken—and I have listened to the whole of the debate, with the exception of a short time when I had to be absent—the questions are now becoming repetitive. They are being advanced with force, no doubt, and there are new embroideries to what are the stark facts, but the major questions remain. Therefore, it is appropriate that I should attempt to answer the major questions which have emerged.
It is not for me to comment on the rulings of the Chair, Mr. Irving—I am in enough trouble as it is—but we have had what in many ways has been almost a Second Reading debate again, because the principle of the Bill has been challenged. Indeed, the mover of the Amendment indicated that it was a wrecking Amendment, because he wanted to wreck the Bill. That is perfectly fair. But since then we have the rather curious situation that it is apparently accepted that there should be some measure of control. If the Amendment were carried there would be no control. Therefore, the Amendment is entirely opposed—I speak with deference—to the decision that the House registered yesterday. The decision may or may not have been right, but the House yesterday registered the decision that there should be some control, and the effect of the Amendment would destroy any control. That is why I assume that the Liberal Party has decided not to divide the Committee and why, if it or others were to divide the Committee, I would have to recommend the Committee to oppose the Amendment.
Broadly speaking, although some hon. Members have said that there should be


no control, most—not universal, by any means—have accepted the need for some control. The arguments have ranged about the numbers who are likely to be allowed to come here and the circumstances under which permission will be given. It is with these arguments that I should like to deal.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has already dealt with the question of the number of vouchers, although I shall have something to say about that. He indicated that the figure of 1,500 was arrived at on the basis of the normal inflow of Kenyan or East African Asians before the panic started. I am not discussing the reason for it. All I am saying is that before it started about 6,000 a year were arriving. On the assumption that there would be a normal flow again and that perhaps not everybody would want to come here, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) said, this figure was selected. But as is clear, there is no figure written into the Bill. It is right that no figure should be written into the Bill. Indeed, some other Governments are likely to he pleased that no figure is to be written into the Bill, because they will not want to feel that it is a fixed figure that is unalterable in all circumstances. No more do I.
On an issue like this, instead of assuming, as some hon. Members did, that the purpose is to try to make life difficult for everybody, they should assume that what the Government have in mind is at least as humanitarian as some of the conditions they themselves are advancing. It is not my desire or that of any member of the Government to fix quotas in such a rigid and inflexible way that they cannot have regard to the human needs of the citizens to whom they are attributed. I give that assurance particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) who made a speech which went to the very nub of the problem. He touched on a great many of the considerations which I have had to weigh anxiously over the last few months. I thank him for what he said, because he said it in many ways more eloquently than I could ever do. The purpose is not to have a rigid figure.
I find it distasteful to believe that any Commonwealth Government would

pursue a policy to the point where they deliberately throw people out of work and indicate that they have to leave the country in which they were born and bred within a matter of weeks or months. It is difficult to believe that any Commonwealth Government would choose to act in that way. Whatever the evidence and the opinions of some of my hon. Friends or hon. Gentlemen opposite may be, I do not proceed on that assumption. I hope that I shall be proved right in proceeding on the assumption that the Government with whom we are dealing in this connection will not act on the basis that they will deliberately throw people out of work and throw them on the mercy of whoever will take them. The Committee should not proceed on the assumption that we expect a standard of conduct and behaviour from another Government lower than that which we ourselves would apply.
Therefore, I begin on the basis that the number of vouchers should be equivalent to that of a normal year's flow. Despite all efforts, it has not been possible to get any meaningful discussion with the Governments concerned about the proper policy to be followed. Efforts have been made. We have tried. I explained yesterday the way in which the problem had been approached. Nothing would have pleased me more than to have avoided these debates by getting some agreement with the other Governments concerned about the way in which this policy should be fulfilled. But I had to say to the House yesterday, and I say to the Committee today, that there has been no response at all.
What will be the effect of the Bill? Will it create a greater sense of panic? Some hon. Gentlemen genuinely argue that it may. It is equally possible to argue that it will create the conditions in which it will be possible to reach a meaningful settlement over a longer period. This is my intention when the Bill is carried through. I feel as deeply as anybody. It is repugnant to anybody in the Committee, and indeed in the whole country, that citizens of ours should be left jobless and wondering about their future. Our aim should be to reach agreement with the Kenya Government on this matter. That should be the purpose of our policy. But meantime we have to take the situation as it is.


I hope I have made clear to the Committee—if not, I will repeat it again—that it is my intention that the number of vouchers fixed is related to what I expect to be the normal flow. This is not a rigid figure. It is a flexible figure, and it will be flexible in relation to the circumstances to which I am now coming.
I was asked what we would do about a man who was thrown out of work and ejected from the country. We shall have to take him. We cannot do anything else in those circumstances.

Mr. Hirst: This is a cardinal point that was touched on earlier. If letters like the one that was read by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) were multiplied, as they may well be, by their thousands, it will make a nonsense of the whole premise on which the Bill is based.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I agree. Let nobody try to avoid any of the difficulties. This Bill is an attempt to control the situation. I do not know whether it will succeed in its purpose, because the decision does not lie wholly in this country. It lies in the civilised behaviour of other Governments. Let there be no doubt about that. If the reaction of others is such that the Bill is swamped, we shall have made our attempt at control. We shall have tried to get a civilised solution to one of the most difficult problems that it has been my misfortune to have to face. I shall not repent of having made the attempt to get a solution. I am sure that this is the right thing to do.
What I expect and believe will be the result of the passage of the Bill is that a number of these citizens now resident in Kenya who, as I understand the situation, are likely to get certificates of employment, who are likely to get trading certificates, for some years to come, will say, "Let us settle down here. We are likely to get them. In five years' time may be the Kenya Government will not want us any more. In that period a solution can be worked out. Over that period a flow can be arranged". That is what I would like to believe is the best way of handling this situation. As a matter of forecasting, anybody's view can be right. Some argue that the Bill will create uncertainty. It is at least as likely that it will create a measure of certainty

on the part of those who are now uncertain about whether they should come or stay.

Mr. Thorpe: m: As the right hon. Gentleman wishes to remove uncertainty, may I, without breaking the chronological order of his argument, press him firmly to answer the point which has been raised, namely, what is the legal status of these people? If they are United Kingdom citizens, what rights have they? What obligations have they? What will happen if they arrive here illegally? Where will they be shipped to? Are they stateless or not?

Mr. Callaghan: I prefer not to deal with the question of legal status, because this is a matter better dealt with by lawyers. It is a most complicated subject, and I have not heard it raised as a major question during the discussion. We have been dealing with the more human issues of what happens to these people, and I would like to come to the question later.
I have been asked what we will do about the people who are here. I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths). I hope that as a result of their own decision, and as a result of the conditions being made possible for them in Kenya, a great many of them will stay where they were born, where they have been bred and earned their living, where they have brought up their families, and have their homes—

Mr. Paget: And where they are needed.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, where they are needed.
Now I come to the basis on which the entry vouchers should be given. It would be wrong to give them on the basis put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) in what was otherwise an excellent speech, that we ought to give vouchers because we need these people, because we need skilled workers.

Mr. Bidwell: I did not mean that.

Mr. Callaghan: If my hon. Friend did not mean that, I make the point in a different way. I do not think that it would be right for us to judge who should come here on the basis of our need,


or because they are skilled. The basis of the criterion which the High Commissioner will apply will clearly be one of humanitarian needs in the first place. Those citizens who are genuinely obliged to leave Kenya through refusal of entry permits or because they hold visitors' passes of short duration, or United Kingdom citizens who apply for immigrant status and have completed arrangements for leaving Kenya and cannot support themselves, are clearly the first group which should have priority, and it is to them that priority will be given.
Then we would deal with those who seem likely to find themselves in this position as a result of the Kenya Government's actions within the coming months, and who can say what is likely to happen? It is on the basis of such criteria that the High Commissioner will embark on the task that he has to fulfil.
On the assumption that the Bill will become law, I would like to say a few words for the benefit of United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa. It is important that they should know the position in relation to making application for the quotas. I would like to read this fairly carefully to let them know how they should set about making arrangements to come to the United Kingdom from the time that the Bill comes into force.
The Government's desire in formulating the new arrangements has been to settle claims for admission on the spot in East Africa. We are doing this to avoid the risk, as far as possible, of fruitless journeys to this country, with all that this would mean in the way of hardship for would-be immigrants and their relatives or their sponsors. Accordingly, we are reinforcing the High Commissions by attaching to them experienced entry certificate officers. People wishing to come to this country, for whatever purpose, should go to the appropriate High Commission to make their application. If they are applying, as head of a household, for one of the vouchers, their application will then be considered by the High Commissioner, to whose representative they will be asked to give a full explanation of their circumstances, their intentions in coming to the United Kingdom, and details of the circum-

stances which are leading to their decision, forced or voluntary, to leave East Africa.
If the High Commissioner decides to allocate a voucher to such an applicant, an entry certificate will be stamped in the passport by the entry certificate officer. An entry certificate is the equivalent of the visas that are required by some foreign nationals, and takes the form of a rubber stamp which will be impressed in the passport.
Apart from the applicants for the vouchers, it is important for me to emphasise again for the benefit of those in East Africa that there will be a whole range of other people who will be entitled to apply for entry certificates. There will be the entitled dependants, the wife and children of the people to whom the vouchers are allocated. There will also be the entitled dependants of United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa who settle in this country before the Bill comes into operation, those who have been arriving in large numbers over the last three months. In addition, there will be people wishing to come to the United Kingdom as students, or visitors, including business visitors.
In all those cases the applicant will be given the fullest opportunity to explain his intentions to the entry certificate officer. If his application is granted, the entry certificate will then be impressed in his passport. If his application is refused, he will have an opportunity of appealing to one of the two independent lawyers, and perhaps I might come back to this point later.
A person who receives one of these entry certificates can then be certain that he will not have a fruitless journey, but a person who, from the date of the operation of the Bill, sets out for the United Kingdom without an entry certificate, can have no assurance that he will be admitted to the United Kingdom. I therefore appeal earnestly to those concerned in East Africa, and to their relatives and sponsors in this country, not to set out without first having applied for, and obtained, an entry certificate from the appropriate High Commission. If this precaution is observed, we shall be able to operate the new control with some sense, and, I stress, with great humanity.
With regard to appeals, I would like to inform the Committee that at the invitation of the Lord Chancellor two distinguished lawyers have agreed to serve. Sir Derek Hilton, the Past President of the Law Society, and Mr. Trevor Reeve, Q.C., have agreed to serve as members of the appeal tribunal. Their terms of reference will be broadly as I described to the House yesterday. They are prepared to go to Nairobi almost immediately. I am most grateful to these gentlemen for responding so readily and agreeing to perform this important duty. They have undertaken to do it for a relatively short period. We have asked them to go there urgently, and of course, in due time, we might want to consider an extention of the arrangements or their replacement by others who would be able to take up the post.
Having made these important points, which I am anxious that people in East Africa should understand, I come back to the thread of the argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Southall asked about the numbers and how many are likely to come. I wish that I knew the answer to the second question. I can only tell him that I have had a number of estimates. The best which I can make is that which I gave the House yesterday, which is derived from our High Commissioners in East Africa. I have always tried not to exaggerate the figure. I think that the figure is about 200,000, but my hon. Friend will understand that that is only an estimate and that otherwise I would be more precise—

Mr. Hooley: According to the figures supplied by the Commonwealth Office to the House of Commons Library, I understand that the total in East Africa altogether is 187,000. As we are considering only Kenya and only those in Kenya who might be likely to come, surely it is absurd to claim a figure of 200,000 in this context?

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend may have his figures. I have been asked, as the Minister, to give the best estimate which I can make and I promise him and my hon. Friend the Member for Southall that I am not just quoting a figure. I have made detailed inquiries, and the figure which I am giving is the one based on the best information which

I can obtain. I do not know what other figures there are—I have heard 40,000 quoted—but I am talking about East Africa. My figure yesterday was for the whole of East Africa—

Mr. Hooley: But we are discussing Kenya alone.

Mr. Callaghan: Kenya's is a variable figure, depending on the number of people either included or excluded. If one breaks down these figures, one faces substantial difficulties. But I ask the Committee to accept that the figure for East Africa as a whole is about—probably more than—200,000 and that is what we are dealing with—[An HON. MEMBER: "With dependants?"]—yes, that includes dependants, certainly. I also made that clear yesterday.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray) made a substantial point in a sincerely felt speech—that the Indian Government was threatening to take action against us. That is not true. I am glad to assure him and the Committee that I have had no information of that sort at all. Indeed, I find that there is a considerable degree of understanding, although disapproval, on the part of the Indian Government. I think that I am putting it fairly. They disapprove strongly of what we are doing, but I find also some understanding of the situation in which we are placed.
I thought also that, at one stage, my hon. Friend overstated the picture, and I should make it clear to him that we are not telling these people that they can never come. I agree with him that, ultimately, if they wish to do so, homes must be found for them in this country. They are our citizens. What we are asking them to do is to form a queue. We are asking that the Government under whose jurisdiction they are now living should recognise the difficulties which they are creating for them, for us and for their own Government, and we are saying "Let us see how we can work out this problem together".
But we are not saying to them, "You shall never come here". What we are trying to do is get some sense into this situation, which I hope we can get as a result of the Bill. I take the point of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and of my hon. Friend the Member for York that discussions will take


place and I hope that they will take place quickly. I say that to hon. Members because it seems to me that this is the object of the Bill.
8.15 p.m.
I was asked about the problem of naturalisation and also about our difficulties if people arrive here without an entry certificate from France. On the question of naturalisation, the Amendment would exclude from the extended operation of the control any alien who was naturalised in a colony before independence. That is the effect. This would mean that such a person will have had at least five years residence in the colony before naturalisation. He may or may not have had some period of residence in the United Kingdom before going to the colony, although the people to whom the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Brian) referred this afternoon, I think, went straight from Europe to the colonies and therefore had no direct connection with this country, although they are now trying to build up such a connection. I do not say that in a denigratory sense. They have been naturally trying to build that connection.
But one must work on the assumption that every one of them had a much shorter period than five years in the United Kingdom or he would have been naturalised here. They must have gone—and most of them went—direct to Kenya. On the basis of the Bill, it seems to us that such people are clearly not United Kingdom belongers as much as colonial belongers.
In view of this—although I would not decide wholly on this basis, especially given the accusations of racial bias, which I repudiate—I would not think it right to include them in this Bill. I hope that those who are accusing me of racialism will take note that I am trying to deal with this not on the basis of whether a person went from Europe to Kenya but on the basis of where he principally belongs. Some will say that this is right and some will say that it is wrong, but it does make the principle more acceptable, and this is the best way of dealing with it.
I come now to a very difficult problem and one which has given me a lot of headaches. The Committee was right to

press it, because we must face it. That is, what happens to the person who arrives here, despite these provisions, from France, having gone there first? The legal position is this. If they come without having obtained an entry certificate in East Africa or from our diplomatic representative in France—I say France because that was the example given earlier in the debate—they will be examined by the immigration officer just like any other Commonwealth citizen. Whether such a person would be admitted would depend on whether he could bring himself within any of the heads of immigration policy, for example as an entitled dependant, a visitor or a student.
If he could not bring himself within any of those heads for admission, admission would be refused. This is the situation which I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have to deal with almost every day, I regret to say. It is one of the most distasteful jobs which I have to do, to turn away people who do not fulfil the conditions—[An HON. MEMBER: "Where would you send him?"] As to where he would go, the aircraft or shipping line which brought him would be required legally to take him back whence he came and what happened to him thereafter would depend on his position under the law of the country to which he went and the attitude which might be adopted by any country to which he might seek admission.
I have stated the legal position—[Interruption.] I defer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I have stated it as given to me and as I understand it. I would point out something which I do not think is generally recognised in the debates, although, of course, the Committee is concerned with the law. But a considerable measure of discretion is vested in the Home Secretary, which he exercises, in these matters. In this executive task which I have to undertake, I frequently find that I have been given the discretion to deal with such cases. My hon. Friend and I spend a great deal of time in anxious cogitation on a number of cases of this sort. My cogitation about this sort of person would be no less than about the others and would probably be a great deal more.
I cannot go further than that. I have stated the law, as I was asked to do. I


hope that it is an accurate statement of the law: if not, someone will get into trouble. If it is, then I only want to say that I would expect to use the discretion with which I have been vested in this matter.
I beg the Committee to believe me when I say, on this question of appeals, that I am setting up a body and that later we will introduce Wilson to stand between the Home Secretary—[Laughter.] We are bringing in the Wilson Committee Report to stand between me and my decision and the entry of these immigrants. I hope that the Committee will not misunderstand me when I say that I welcome ii as a shield. I believe that it will save me from a great deal of criticism when it comes into force. However, I would not want the Committee to believe that in my view it will make more compassionate the treatment of the people who are coming here, and that this is what it is all about.
I know the strong view of the Committee and I am expressing my view about it, having seen it in action and knowing the way in which my hon. Friend and I and my predecessors have approached this problem. I will bring it in, bat I want to tell the Committee in advance of that legislation that we shall continue to exercise the powers that are vested in us in the interests of human decency and compassion where it is necessary to do so.

Mr. James Johnson: I do not wish to embarrass my right hon. Friend too much. It is my recollection—and perhaps it is that of the Committee—that his hon. Friend went further earlier this afternoon when asked a similar question.

Mr. Callaghan: I was unfortunately not able to be here when my hon. Friend made his statement. That was the time when I had to leave the Committee. I do not know whether or not he went further, but I am sure that he and I are agreed about what we should do. If not there will be trouble again. It will be settled on the kind of basis I have been describing, whether or not the exact words my hon. Friend used were the same as mine.

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend does not wish to intervene on a point of law.

Mr. Paget: No, but is my hon. Friend interested in Tannhauser's view of the law?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, I would be interested in it, but I am not sure how far the Committee would be interested in it at this time.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am sure that much of what my right hon. Friend has said will allay many of the fears expressed by my hon. Friends. However, may I urge him to go just one stage further and give an assurance that in exercising the High Commissioner's discretion in the granting of entry certificates, which my right hon. Friend has explained clearly, the High Commissioner will not have any fixed numerical limit in any one period?

Mr. Callaghan: I wish that I could give that assurance, but I cannot. If we are to get meaningful discussions about this policy, it is important that there should be some known figure at the outset. I have indicated—I cannot go over the whole argument again—that this is not a fixed figure but a flexible one that can be altered in accordance with a number of considerations, some of which were advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for York. The quota is not fixed and in my view it should not remain fixed. However, I am certain that the only alternative to having a fixed quota would be to have something which, because of its very elasticity, would not bite on the particular situation, and, therefore, I must, I am afraid, stick to a figure in present circumstances.
I have two other important points to make. First, in view of the anxiety which the Committee feels and which is shared by everyone, we have had a real debate today, as we did yesterday. There has not been a sort of taking up of positions but a searching examination of words, consciences and hearts so that we may find the best way over this problem. I am not sure whether the Committee fully realises that we will have an opportunity of going over all these problems again under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, because this will be part


of the expiring laws which must be renewed again by Parliament in the autumn. This will, and properly, give us an opportunity of reviewing the matter once more and seeing where we are getting.
Secondly—and here I perhaps exceed my responsibility—I would remind the Committee that we have had a long debate about this. A lot still remains to be done, although I know the anxieties that are felt by a great many hon. Members on this issue. I hope that they will forgive me when I say that I think that we have had a number of frustrated Second Reading speeches from yesterday. Perhaps mine is one of them. I understand that there is not to be a Division called by the mover of the Amendment and I therefore ask the Committee if it considers, in view of the length of time that we have spent on this matter, whether we may very soon reach a conclusion on this Amendment so that we may move on to some of the other very important issues which must also be thrashed out.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): I hope that the Committee will yield to the right hon. Gentleman's persuasion because we will have other opportunities later of raising at least some of the questions involved. I apologise at the outset for not having been present during the whole of the debate.
When people say, as hon. Members on both sides of the argument have said, including my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), that they welcome the fact that this is a wrecking Amendment, I think that those who voted for the Second Reading yesterday, as I did, are entitled to take them at their word and say that those who conscientiously voted for the Second Reading must recognise the Amendment for what it is.
At this point I address my remarks to the Amendment and to nothing else. It would wreck not only the Bill but the principal Act because if one reads it carefully one sees that it would not only remove the control which is proposed in the Bill but, because the Clause to which it is an Amendment is part of, and an Amendment to, the principal Act, it would wreck any sort of immigration control on Commonwealth citizens. This may be the reason why the Liberal Party is not pressing it to a Division.
I share the view of the Home Secretary that this is not an occasion for frustrated Second Reading speeches, but I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton, and the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray), talked again about racism and racialism. Indeed, my hon. Friend went so far as to say that the Bill was racism "naked and unashamed". He does a real disservice to the English language and political reality by using wild and, with respect, irresponsible words of that kind.
Neither the Home Secretary nor I are, I believe, racists. The very fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) pointed out that a number of people of German, Australian, South African and European descent generally will be caught by this Measure as much as the Asians proves that it is not a racialist Bill. It is not, in my judgment, an objectionable thing to put forward criteria which do not introduce the question of race. I do not think that it is racialist to insert into the Bill provisions which recognise the special position of those who have family connections with this country. I believe that every civilised country would do that.
8.30 p.m.
I am absolutely sure that the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the real underlying hope that we must have in introducing this legislation is to make the Kenya Government discuss the matter very carefully with Her Majesty's representatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton talked as though Kenyanisation were something quite different from Africanisation. I do not think that it is. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) says that it is, but I am not so sure.
In my lifetime—not, perhaps, so much in the lifetime of the right hon. Gentleman—we have lived through a very considerable period of unemployment. We know by experience what unemployment means. Never once, as far as I know, under successive Governments, in the period between the wars did we allow unemployment to develop into xenophobia—and we should have been absolutely insane had we allowed ourselves to do so.
The idea that we can find work for an out-of-work miner by turning a shopkeeper out of the country has absolutely


no relationship at all to economic reality. The idea—we all have it, and why should we not have it?—that we should give some kind of preference in economic matters to our own people—which, no doubt, underlies Kenyanisation—and that we can create work for someone in our own country by depriving someone else with special skill, special enterprise, special abilities, of his chance to earn a living, is not only inhuman, because it is inhuman if that person has been living there for two or three generations, as is the case here, but is also economically absurd. To yield to it is to yield to demogogy, and not to common sense—

Mr. Heffer: It works in reverse.

Mr. Hogg: It works in every way, if it is applied honestly.
We have every right to say that the proper answer for Britain is to persuade these Asians and the Kenya Government that the right thing is for the Kenya Asians to stay put, if they can.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was also right to say that our approach to the problem of what to do if people will not listen either to humanity or to common sense must be based on principles different from those of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act as applied now. I have tried to persuade my colleagues—not always, at first sight, successfully, but I shall continue to persuade them, if I can—that the basis of dealing with this problem must be one of humanitarianism and not one of capability of employment. That means that we cannot apply to this problem principles which we have been applying from experience in the other Commonwealth immigrant legislation.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that at the end of the day we have to trust him, up to a point, to apply humanitarian principles in what is otherwise an insoluble situation. The position of Home Secretary is one of the most difficult and embarrassing positions a man can hold. I remember—and I do not think that I am divulging a confidence—that when I wrote to congratulate the then Mr. Henry Brooke on becoming Home Secretary, I pointed out to him that in my experience it was the one job in which one could be ruined whilst in bed at night. Things go wrong whilst one is innocently asleep.
We can trust the right hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that he would use his discretion in the same way that I would use my discretion, but we must trust him to use his discretion as fairly as he can. For that reason, I am with him on this issue. I am aware of the danger that I might become a carbon copy of the right hon. Gentleman, but I try to express myself in a different way.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: On a point of order, Mr. Brewis. A point has been made by the Home Secretary asking for a curtailment of the debate. Many of us have sat here for two days waiting to explain our position. Some of my hon. Friends and I who voted against the Second Reading consider this Clause the nub of the whole Bill. Your predecessors in the Chair—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Brewis): Will the hon. Member come to his point of order?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: —have allowed a very wide-ranging debate on this Amendment. While I and my hon. Friends are willing to leave this point, I ask if it is the intention of the Chair to have a debate on the Motion, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, because if there is no debate on that Motion we shall be obliged to exercise our rights on this Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman: I cannot inform the hon. Member whether there will be such a debate or not.

Mr. Henig: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee for very long because I appreciate the force of what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said. On the other hand, I think one may reply that this is most important legislation. This is a Bill with seven Clauses and there are many Amendments. The Government have suggested that it should go through Committee in one day's Sitting. That suggestion might have been opposed, but it was not. Therefore, if this Sitting goes on and we continue to talk on these Amendments, I do not think my right hon. Friend should hold us completely responsible for that.
I appreciate that, in language and tone, my right hon. Friend has made some concessions today compared with the general tone of speeches from the Front Bench yesterday. I am a little


happier now, although I am not completely satisfied. The specific point that is worrying many of us and which drove many of us to vote against the Bill last night is in relation to this Clause. These are British subjects in Kenya. They are facing a situation in which Kenyanisation has been pursued for some months and they have been seeking to enter this country. The legislation being passed in this Clause means that in future there is to be a stiff quota. I hope my right hon. Friend can go a little further towards alleviating what will happen to these people if their living conditions in Kenya become quite impossible and if they reach the kind of conditions under which we would not like people in this country to live. My right hon. Friend has not answered that. He has said, "We will be flexible and humanitarian", but he has made quite clear that he is sticking to the number of 1,500 vouchers per year. On the evidence of the last few months since Kenyanisation began that is not sufficient.
I wish to make two specific points which have not yet been made. When people ask, "Where do these people belong?" and when they say, "They do not belong here", I think they are guilty of trying to deny things which have happened in the past. Many of these people have been educated in the English language and English customs and often they have had an English culture imposed on them. From almost every point of view their connections with this country have been greater than with India, Pakistan or some of the countries on which we would like to fob off our own problem. This problem arises because once we had an Empire and now that Empire is being wound up. While we had that Empire, we gained some advantages from it. I should not like to think that not only did we exploit people in Imperialist days but that we exploit them still.
My second point is that people who hold British passports are British-protected persons. I should like to know what will happen if those people, denied jobs and a proper living in Kenya or any other country, go to a British consul and say to him, Look after me; help me." The one thing he cannot do is allow them to come to this country. In

that case, it seems that British protection amounts to very little.
Had I been allowed to do so, I should have welcomed the opportunity to move my own Amendment, in page 1, line 8, to leave out ' and fulfils ' and insert:
' where that person is a citizen also of any other country, he shall fulfil '.
although it is covered to some extent by the present Amendment. What I should like is an Amendment to ensure that the people who we are putting under restrictions are those who have genuine claims to dual nationality, that is, nationality or citizenship of another country apart from this country. I am seriously worried about the smaller group within the total to whom the Bill applies, that is, those who have citizenship of this country only.
I realise that my right hon. Friend is in great difficulty. Perhaps. if he had thought of some of the difficulties in advance, the Bill as it is would not have been introduced, or other action could have been taken. I do not know. But now we have the Bill. It is most unfortunate, and I recognise the Home Secretary's plight. Nevertheless, the House of Commons owes it to holders of British passports who have no other nationality to recognise that they are relying on a British pledge although they are now living in another country.
Even if he cannot, as he explained. make a public statement in the House. will my right hon. Friend make clear, that, in the event of there being real discrimination against these people, we shall fulfil our responsibilities, that we would not look all round the world for someone else to do it for us? I would like my right hon. Friend to make that clear to these people, to their leaders, some of whom are now in London, assuring them that they can confidently accept that we are not depriving them of their citizenship, although it may look like that, and they still have an absolute right to enter this country, the Government's purpose being merely to try to phase the process. Let him say that, if it appears that conditions in Kenya or other countries deteriorate and there is a rush of people trying to obtain entry by means which will then be illegal, we shall revert back and be prepared to undertake our full responsibilities towards these people.
I put that request to my right hon. Friend. I know that he has been doing a lot of what I would call "double entendre-ing" in what he has had to say. I appreciate the reasons for that, but I should like to think that, behind the scenes, and in his contacts with these terribly worried and frightened people, he could assure them that they had no need to fear what was being done by the country they have looked to for so long, the country to which they belong, no less than we do, because they have British passports. I want them to be confident that, in the ultimate extremity, we shall not let them down.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: My pretext for intervening in the debate is that in 1948, when the British Nationality Act was passed, I was responsible for the Immigration and Naturalisation Department in Kenya. Whatever may have been said yesterday about whether the implications of that Act were understood in the Colonies, they were certainly understood by me and by everyone I met and talked to in that Colony at the What the then Labour Government were trying to do was obvious. They were trying to establish a real Commonwealth of this country and the Colonies in which there was free, interchangeable citizenship between all the territories and in which people could move from one territory to another with freedom and ease. People who say that that was not understood at the time do not know what was going on in the colonial territories.
My reason, apart from the pretext, for intervening in the debate is that Clause I is utterly repugnant to me. I voted against the Bill last night. I shall vote against the Clause today. In the last few minutes, as a result of two eloquent and persuasive speeches from the Front Benches, the heart of the debate has moved somewhat away from the point about which so many of us feel so strongly, that point being that the intention of the Bill, as has been said over and over again, is to deprive holders of United Kingdom passports of some of the rights inherent in those passports, above all the basic right of freedom to enter this country at will.
Not many have suggested that no pledge was given to the Kenya Asians that they would be able to enter this

country at will. That has been said by one or two right hon. and hon. Members. I would point out that the pledge was given in the most concrete form by the issue of a passport, a piece of paper, to those people, which made that pledge explicit. Nobody who was given that passport was led to believe that it did not include the right to come here whenever he or she wanted.
8.45 p.m.
I hope and believe that most hon. Members have never had occasion to be worried about their national status. I have. I was stupid enough to find myself in Hong Kong in December, 1941, and not to be able to leave until September, 1945. As those hon. Members who have been in such an unfortunate position will know, when one is taken prisoner one has with one the most inconsequential articles which during the coming months and years assume a very great importance because they are relics of a previous life, which one does not know whether or not one will see again.
I happened at that time to have with me my passport, one of the things I had snatched up in a great hurry when the Japanese arrived in Hong Kong. During those years I treasured that document and regarded it as a sort of talisman which was literally my passport to some sort of life after the war was over. The Japanese did not encourage us to believe that there would be very much in that life. Having that piece of paper, that document which each of us who had it took out and pored over night after night, meant to us something which I believe very few holders of British passports have experienced. It was something we could treasure and hang on to, something which was the future.
That is one small way in which I can try to convey to the Committee exactly what the Kenya Asians now feel. In a way, their passports are their sheet anchor. They mean to them something more than hon. Members can possibly understand unless they have been unfortunate enough to go through the same kind of experience. That example may help hon. Members to understand exactly what we are doing to these people.
The Government and the Home Secretary are on the hook tonight, and nobody has suggested a practical way in which


they can get off it. I should like to suggest something which can be done, which would be entirely within the Government's power to do without legislation, and which would, I believe, as a package deal, bring about an acceptable situation without breaking our pledges to anybody. The first thing to do would be to withdraw the Clause.
Here I shall digress for a moment. The Home Secretary was asked yesterday what was happening about the issue of passports in former Colonial Territories and all over the world to people who would not qualify to come to this country under the terms of the Bill. Are those passports still being issued? Have the High Commissioners and the consulates been instructed to continue to issue passports which we know, under the terms of the Bill, will not be honoured? If they are still be issued, immediate instructions should be issued to the High Commissioners and consulates throughout the world to stop issuing them. That would at once reduce the problem to measurable proportions. There would no longer be the emotional talk of 4 million in Hong Kong, 700,000 in Mauritius and goodness knows how many people elsewhere who might one day be eligible to come to this country on United Kingdom passports. If these passports were now issued only under the terms of the Clause to those who have a demonstrable connection with this country, the bogey of enormous numbers which has been waved over our heads during the debate would cease to exist. That is the second thing that the Home Secretary could do, again by administrative action immediately and without legislation.
The third thing that he could do, also administratively and without legislation, is to announce that no more entry vouchers will be issued for anyone except the holders of United Kingdom passports in these places—that for a temporary period the only people Who will be admitted to this country are those with United Kingdom passports. The fourth thing that he could do is announce that no restrictions will be placed on those in East Africa who want to come and who have passports.
I believe that the combination of these four measures would so steady the situa-

tion that the bogey of enormous numbers of immigrants arriving here over a short period would disappear. I commend this package deal seriously to the right hon. Gentleman. The extraordinary thing about this debate is that everyone seems to have assumed that the Bill is the only way to solve the situation. Many right hon. and hon. Members have tried to explain that it will be administered humanely and that every possible care will be taken to see that no one suffers, but the basic objection we all have to the Bill is that we are breaking our word. The course I suggest would not break our word to anyone and would be equally effective in solving the problem.

Mr. Christopher Price: I represent a constituency which swung very much against the national pattern in 1964, largely on the immigration issue. I voted for Second Reading last night because I know from my experience in Birmingham the sort of problems that it and cities like it have in coping when immigration on this scale is not dispersed over the country as a whole but is concentrated, not so much in cities, but in very small areas of particular cities. For this reason, I accept that we must have legislation.
But I do not feel able to vote for Clause 1. I must vote against it because I cannot accept that legislation embodying a racial discriminatory principle like this should be put on the Statute Book. In spite of the fact that we all accept that there are no racialist feelings in the authors of the Bill or among hon. Members, I feel that legislation of this kind produces an atmosphere, particularly in cities like Birmingham, which have this problem to cope with, which undoes any good one might do by restricting numbers.
I have just been given a telegram from the Birmingham Liaison Committee for Immigrants, which has done more than any other city immigrant organisation in terms of integration. The telegram says that the Committee believes that Clause 1 is morally wrong and considers that its passage will destroy its work in Birmingham for integration. It urges me to vote against it.
I cannot see why, if this is an emergency Bill to deal with a desperately urgent situation, we must thereby exempt


people whose grandfathers and fathers happened to be born in this country.
If this is such a grave emergency, the only condition under which the Government should have put this Bill forward, breaking pledges as it does, would have been on the basis that it treated everyone in these categories exactly alike. To create this "kith and kin" category, established in our legislation for the first time, maybe defensible by the Front Bench in desperate circumstances today, but augurs so seriously for any legislation which may follow that even though I know the needs of Birmingham, this principle must be resisted and I intend to resist it.

Mr. David Steel: I am sorry that the Home Office Ministers have departed before I have had a chance to wind up on this Amendment. I hope that they will return before I have finished. The Amendment has done the job which we intended it to do. It has provided a focus for the kind of issues we had in mind and has probed into the Government's thinking in this matter in the way in which we had intended. It is not our intention to call a Division on it.
There is one issue which I would like to take up with the Home Secretary, relating to something that he said on the television programme "This Week" last night. This is the point of departure, in principle, for which criticism should be levelled at the Government. In answer to a question about whether he felt bound by the undertakings given to the citizens of Kenya in 1963, he said that no Government could expect to bind their successors. That was a disgraceful thing to say in this context.
Let no one escape the fact that this is not a question of a Labour Party Government pursuing a different political policy from a Conservative Party Government. It is a question of the British Government breaking a principle which has been upheld by every British Government and every party over generations, namely the principle of the right of United Kingdom citizens holding British passports to have free access in and out of this country. It is not a question of shuffling off and saying to the public "We may change our mind about something that a previous Government did." That remark was unworthy of the right

hon. Gentleman, and I hope that we will hear nothing more of it in future debates.
We may have wrung a considerable concession from the Government, but I am not absolutley certain and I want clarification. I do not want further speeches on this particular Amendment, if that is the wish of the Committee, but I hope that opportunity will be taken by the Government, on Clause 2, or during the debate on the Motion, That the Clause stand part, to clarify what has been said. I understood the Under-Secretary to say that he could not foresee a situation in which a British Government would refuse entry into this country of any person who had been expelled from Kenya and who had no other right of entry to any other country.
He said this quite clearly. After that, I intervened and read out this letter, which is the form issued by the Kenya Government to those non-citizens whose working rights are being terminated. I asked him what would happen in the case of this individual, who has been asked to leave Kenya, with his dependants, by 30th June. The Under-Secretary replied that he should go to the British High Commission and apply for a voucher to come here. These two statements are slightly contradictory.
It is only a matter of time before Mr. X, who has to leave before 30th June, will be prosecuted by the courts and expelled if he has not left by that time. He will come then into the category which I understood the Under-Secretary to say would be accepted automatically by the British Government into this country. It is important that this point is cleared up, because it cannot be the intention of the Government that all people who receive this form, if they are not lucky enough to get a voucher on application, should be taken to court and for this Government then to say that if they have gone through the legal proceedings and have been expelled, they will be allowed to come in, but otherwise not. If the Government are serious in saying that they will not refuse entry into this country of anyone forced to leave Kenya, it would have been sensible to have said this in the statement last week. A lot of the people in this country now would not have come. They came because they believed that after the passing


of this Bill they would not be able to get here, even if they had nowhere else to go, if they were not within the 1,500 quota system.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate from what I have said that I have a great deal of sympathy with what he is saying. Would not he agree that the question of the entry voucher is a matter of formality? The real question is whether there will be a fixed limit to the number of people allowed in. If people are to be allowed in on humanitarian grounds and on grounds of need, and there is no fixed limit, it does not matter whether they have to get an entry certificate in Kenya or not.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Steel: I do not entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, for this reason. I do not like to haggle about fixed numbers; that is a mistake. But I believe that if the Government mean that those expelled from Kenya or required to leave Kenya who are British citizens and holders of British passports will not be refused entry here, they should say so clearly, because it will have an immediate effect in stemming the flood even before the Bill becomes law. It will relieve many people's mental suffering. That is why I want the Solicitor-General to note what I am saying. There is an apparent contradiction in the two statements of the one Minister. This point must be cleared up later tonight and a very clear statement must be made on the Amendment which the hon. and learned Gentleman will move next.
While I am on the question of the requirements to leave Kenya, may I take up a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) which was touched on by the Home Secretary. It would be a mistake for us to believe that the Government of Kenya are embarking on a deliberate policy to expel all its non-citizens. That is not the case. It is dangerous to say that that is the case. The document issued by the department of immigration of the Kenya Government in Nairobi is similar to the documents which the Home Office in this country issues to non-citizens when their working time has expired.
On occasion, I have made representations to the Home Secretary, on behalf

of employers in my constituency, with employees who are not citizens of this country and whose working permit has expired and therefore they have been required by the Home Office to leave. On occasion, the policy is interpreted liberally and the Home Office says "We will grant an extension". But some of these people have not been temporarily working in the country but have been there all their lives and, in some cases, for generations. Unfortunately, in a sense, we created this problem by giving them the option of taking Kenya citizenship. The Kenya Government are treating them as non-citizens. The Kenya Trade Licensing Act discriminates between citizens and non-citizens, but not on a racial basis.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman must not deceive himself about this. There is all the difference in the world between a permit given to a person who comes to this country to work for a limited time and a notice to quit given to a man whose grandfather came about 50 years ago, for whatever reason. To do one is a perfectly normal act of administration. The other must be and can only be described as an act of sheer inhumanity.

Mr. Steel: I took care to say that I accepted that there was a difference, but the latter Measure of the Kenya Government, and the fact that these people are in the peculiar position of having been born in the country but are not citizens of it, were acts of our creation at the time of the 1963 independence Act. We cannot escape from that responsibility. I do not defend the Kenya Government's policy. I am saying that it is dangerous to represent it as being something wholly unusual or to believe that they desire to get rid of all their non-citizens. That is not the policy.
Moreover, I think the idea that if we take away the quota figure we then encourage the Kenyan Government to expel more people is fallacious. I do not think the Kenyan Government's policy of Kenyanisation will in any way be influenced by the policy of this Government over the numbers of people they will take. I have said before, and I say it again, that I wish that the pace of the policy of Kenyanisation would slow down, but I am certain


that the rate at which it advances has nothing to do with our legislation on immigration into this country. I hope talks will take place between the Government and the Government of Kenya to ascertain precisely how many people are likely in the near future to be affected by this kind of notice, and then the Government will know a little better how many people they are likely to be required to take into this country by rights which they have by virtue of holding United Kingdom passports.
I have raised the critical question of trying to get clarification of the statement we had earlier from the Home Department and I hope that the Solicitor-General will respond to that later.
My final point is simply to ask the Home Secretary about the people who come to this country without entry permits. He said that the airline is legally responsible—if I understood him correctly—to return the citizen. [Interruption.] I am going on what the Home Secretary said. There will be further argument: about this later from the Solicitor-General. The Home Secretary said that the airline was legally obliged to return such a person, who came here without an entry permit, to the country whence he came.
The Solicitor-General will remember the example I gave in the debate last night, a case which was not answered then, and which the Home Secretary was answering now. It is the case of somebody who, with a British passport, leaves Kenya—in the example I gave, by Air France—and switches planes in Paris and comes from Paris to the United Kingdom. If Air France is obliged to return him, where will Air France return him to? If it were to take him back to France, where he had no right to stay, the airline would be told, "Take him back to London. He has a British passport." That person could be in a permanent state of flying backwards and forwards the whole time. I do not think the Government have answered that question satisfactorily, and I hope it will be answered.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Has my hon. Friend considered what might happen with Irish International Airlines if large numbers of Kenyans arrived in Dublin and they took the boat from

Dublin to Holyhead? Would they incur the penalties provided under this Bill?

Mr. David Steel: I accept the illustration my hon. Friend gives as being another example in quantity of the difficulty we get ourselves into.

Mr. McNamara: Following the question by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), we who know about Ireland know about the border which divides that country. People can cross it, and could come to this country in that way.

Mr. David Steel: That strengthens my argument and extends still further the difficulties which the Government have to consider.
It will be my intention to seek leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I do not wish to curtail the rights of hon. Members who have sat here a long time waiting to speak in this debate, and I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment when the House wishes me to do so.

Mr. Hooley: My right hon. Friend has been bandying words in what I think is a rather dangerous manner. He gave certain figures which he suggested were involved in presenting this Bill to the House. Of course, figures are important, because, as I understand the Government's case, the Government are doing something which is repugnant to them, and having claimed that they wish not to do this kind of thing, they have said it is a difficult decision to take; but the basis of their case is that we are faced with a situation so appalling, so overwhelming, so catastrophic that they had to go to the extent of repudiating a document of such fundamental importance as a British passport.
As honest and reasonable men we obviously must consider whether the Government's case is such that, where we are faced with this catastrophic situation which they represented to us, it can possibly justify an action so drastic as the repudiation of citizenship.
We need to look a little more closely at some of the figures which have been bandied about, and we should not accept too lightly the statements which have been made by Government spokesmen. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the


Home Secretary talked about 1 million people. Today he talked about 200,000. The fact is that, if one takes account of all who hold United Kingdom passports and are normally domiciled overseas, according to figures supplied by the General and Migration Department of the Commonwealth Office, which presumably is an authoritative body, there are about 330,000 such people in the whole world. That amounts to three-quarters of the normal migration of Commonwealth citizens to this country in a year. It is true that another million people have dual citizenship, but we are not concerned with them tonight. We are concerned with those whose only entitlement is citizenship of the United Kingdom and who, for practical purposes, are stateless if they are denied the right to come here since they will have no legal right to go to any other country.
We are told that we are faced by a "flood" of immigrants and that that is the immediate justification for this legislation. I have received an estimate from a body known as the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants to the effect that there may be something of the order of 40,000 people of Asian origin in Kenya who wish to come here. That number represents about 10 per cent. of the normal migration to this country from the Commonwealth.
In recent years the total migration from the Commonwealth has been between 430,000 and 440,000. That means that we are talking about an additional 10 per cent. on the flow which has come here each year since 1965. I should not have thought that an increase of 10 per cent. on that figure was what the Home Secretary called an overwhelming, catastrophic "invasion" which justified a Bill of this Draconian import repudiating the validity of a British passport.
The figures can be looked at in another way. We have heard a great deal about an inflow of 440,000, but what about the outflow. In recent years, the net balance has been declining. In 1967, it fell from 70,000 to 36,000. Even if the whole 40,000 insisted on coming this year, which in itself is an estimate, still we should be left with a net balance of Commonwealth immigration which was no greater than the number that we took in 1964.
Those are the real figures that we are discussing. We are not talking about a million or 200,000. According to figures supplied by the General and Migration Department of the Commonwealth Office, in East Africa there are only 187,000 people who have a legal entitlement. That is the outside limit of people throughout East Africa. It has nothing to do with the number of people who may want to come now or at any time in the future. It is simply a number of people with a certain legal entitlement. What we are faced with at the moment, and the Government's justification for this very sweeping legislation, is a figure of about 40,000 which, added to the normal net migration which occurred last year, could give a total net balance of immigration in 1968 scarcely exceeding, if at all, the net balance which we had in 1964. It is open to my hon. Friend to challenge these figures.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend said that I could challenge the figures, and I do. Apart from the general figure which my hon. Friend gave, concerning the whole of East Africa the best estimate we have, which is very little different from the assessment of the Kenya Government, is 130,000. The Kenya Government say that there are about 120,000 in Kenya in this position, but our estimate is nearer 130,000. The gap is not very wide. No one could prove that every one would wish to come to this country. All we can say is that that is the figure of those holding our citizenship and passports who have not opted for Kenyan citizenship and for whom, therefore, this possibility exists.

Mr. Hooley: My hon. Friend is entitled to his opinion, but it is wholly unreal for him to argue that these 120,000 people intend to migrate to this country in the near future. For example, of 750 doctors practising in Kenya 695 are of Asian origin. It seems totally inconceivable that the Kenya Government would desire to bring any kind of pressure on that particular category of Kenya Asians to induce them to leave the country. There are many other professional categories, too.
My examination of these figures leads me to the conclusion that the Government have allowed themselves to be


over-persuaded by certain pressures that a particular situation exists, which has been wildly exaggerated. But numerically the situation is not such to justify legislation of this character. If this legislation were justified, the provision within Clause 1 which clearly discriminates between those of Asian and European origin—the so-called grandfather Clause—is totally repugnant to the kind of thing that I would like to see on the Statute Book.

Mr. William Baxter: On a point of order. This matter has now been ventilated for a fair length of time. May I move the closure at this stage?

The Chairman: No, I cannot accept that Motion at this stage.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I deplore that attempted action by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter). I make no apology for speaking at this late hour. It is no fault of mine that it is sc late. I have sat here for a total of 13 hours on two days. I make no great point about that, because many hon. Members have done likewise.
I do not think that I have any earth-shattering pronouncements to make, but this is a vitally important matter. In this country we enjoy government by discussion. Back benchers have very few rights. We have one or two, and one of them is to talk. When I hear Front Bench members on either side who have spoken on each day asking us to curtail our remarks, I say that I would be more impressed by example than by precept. Nevertheless, in deference to the lateness of the hour, I shall not omit my remarks, but make them as succinct as I normally do.

Mr. Hogg: I hope that my hon. Friend was not accusing me of asking him to curtail his remarks. I hope that he will be as succinct as he normally is. I was telling one of my hon. Friends that he could go and phone his wife.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is advice which my right hon. and learned Friend could proffer to me. but I should be unable to comply. I am glad of that practical confirmation of his care for family unity.
I think that we must be grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk

and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) for tabling this Amendment, and thus allowing a wide-ranging debate to take place.
I want to say a few words about the attitude of the Liberal Party to the Amendment, and to this issue in general. I do not particularly like Liberals. I must make that plain. Queen Victoria said, "I do not like bishops" and I have the same sort of feeling about Liberals. I speak from experience.

Mr. Lubbock: Mr. Lubbock rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall not give way. If the cap fits, the hon. Gentleman can wear it. I speak from experience in my constituency, where I have found the Liberals most tiresome and troublesome. But having said that, I would like to pay tribute to them as a party. They have made a stand over this Bill, which in my opinion, justifies their existence. With that qualified tribute, I pass to the Home Secretary.
I sympathise with the difficult position in which the right hon. Gentleman finds himself. It would be absurd to suggest that he—or other members of the Government—was racialist in intention in any way. If there is criticism of the Bill as a racialist Measure, I think that the criticism is not of the right hon. Gentleman's motives, but of the effects of this legislation, and it is important to be quite clear in one's mind about that distinction.
But if the Home Secretary is having a difficult time, he deserves it, because he has introduced the Bill. It is a bad Bill, and if one introduces a bad Measure, one must expect to be criticised. If it is a Bill which concerns the fundamental rights and liberties of the subject, one must expect to be criticised with all the rigour that the House of Commons can command.
My criticism of the Home Secretary is not of his motives, because I am in no position to judge them. I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) who put his finger on the problem when he referred to the statistical aspects of the Bill. The whole case for the Bill is a statistical one. The country has been hypnotised, has been panicked, by the thought of numbers, and one of the difficulties in which back benchers find themselves, however painstaking we may be, is that it is almost impossible to get at


the source of adequate statistics in this regard.
My criticism of the Home Secretary is that he has come to the House statistically barren. I do not normally care very much for statistics, but in this case, with this Bill, the whole issue rests on numbers, and we ought to have a much fuller statement from the right hon. Gentleman, or the Parliamentary Secretary, than these rather vague, and sometimes contradictory, statements about the number of people involved.
My estimate, which I have drawn from the Institute of Race Relations, is that the number involved in Kenya itself—this is the vital problem—is about 100,000, including all dependants. That is not a very large number. Even if one takes into account the others in East Africa, my information is that the number there is about 60,000. When one considers that people are coming in from the Commonwealth at a rate of 60,000 a year, does this figure really justify a Bill making a fundamental constitutional change of this order? Surely we must ask ourselves, was there not some other way of dealing with the problem? The burden of proof is on the Home Secretary and his colleagues in this debate, and they have notably failed to discharge it.
I would put to the Home Secretary a small point but one about which I feel strongly. This is unacceptable and repellent legislation, but let us not make the situation even worse by use of a terminology which to me is even more repellent. The Home Secretary used the word "belongers". I find that word utterly repellent in this context. I hope that we shall not use this as part of the jargon in discussing this issue. Are we to have the word "belongers" stamped on our passports and "non-belongers" stamped on those of other people? This is a repellent description and I hope that it can vanish from our discussions. That would be a small gain.
I want to return to the fundamental principles of this Clause, which, after all, vitiates the whole Bill. The objection to the Clause is based on two points. The first is the constitutional point, which is that the holders of United Kingdom passports issued by Britain—I stress the words "issued by Britain"—for the first time will have their basic right of entry

of this country taken away. That is the point.
The Commonwealth Immigrants Act affected Commonwealth passports and not British passports issued by Britain for citizens of the United Kingdom as such. That is the point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) never made clear in his speech—

Mr. Hogg: I must point out to my hon. Friend that he is wrong. It did affect British passports. For instance, it affected a British passport issued by the Governor of Gibraltar or Mauritius. It is well known that it did that. My hon. Friend is wrong about that and my right hon. Friend is right.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: On these points of nationality, there is obviously room for different points of view—[An HON. MEMBER: "This is fact."] If it were merely a question of fact, there would be no lawyers in the country. I naturally treat the point of view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) with all the respect which it should be accorded.
If this precedent is allowed to go unchallenged, what of the future? It will be open to any future Government to impose other conditions on holders of British passports. The rights and liberties of every citizen are threatened by this Bill. This is a breach of a fundamental constitutional principle. That is much more important than argument about whether this is a racialist or a non-racialist Bill. I certainly make no accusations of racialism against anyone, though I would not go so far as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price), who declared that no racialist sentiments animate the breast of any Member of the House. It would be strange if that were so, since the House is a reflection of the country. I make no accusation against the Home Secretary, and least of all against the Under-Secretary because I have reason to know—and I take this occasion to pay tribute to him—of his compassion and the help he has given me and other hon. Members when difficult racial problems have faced us in our constituencies.
9.30 p.m.
Apart from the constitutional issue, a moral issue is involved. I am making


no exclusive claim for morality on this. I am answerable for my own conscience and not for anyone else's. Other views have been expressed. For example, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone has expressed a different view and I am sure that his conscience is clear. If I had to answer for another conscience on the day of Judgment, I would be content to settle for that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone who, throughout the debates on these difficult subjects, has made a noteworthy contribution to our discussions.
There can be no doubt that, most people as they look at the situation, feel that, as part of the settlement for Kenya independence, a right to opt for British citizenship, British passports and all the rights that go with that status and that document were given to Asians in Kenya and other citizens as well. There can be no doubt about that and I am glad that, at this point in my remarks, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham has rejoined us because it seems that although he has made much of what he said and of the pledges he did not give—others, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. kin Macleod) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) have given diametrically opposed accounts of the situation. In fact all that dispute is totally irrelevant.
It does not need an exegesis in HANSARD to decide this point. If one gives a British passport, one gives all the rights that go with it, and if there is no statement in HANSARD about it, the reason is simply because nobody ever thought otherwise at the time. It was never brought up because it was presumed to be so. If one wants to get out of that, it is better to say, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet said, "Things have changed. We made this pledge and had this commitment, but we now cannot fulfil it", than to try to maintain a position that the pledge was never given in the first place.
I take a simple view of these matters, being essentially a simple person. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone used the analogy of the bank. To adopt that analogy and parallel it, I regard it rather like a cheque. I would not in private life

consider dishonouring a cheque because it was inconvenient for me to pay out the money at a later date. I do not see that the position is any different in public life. It is not a question of colour but of honour, and we must each make our own stand on that.
It is true, turning from the issues of principle to the practical situation, that if the entire Asian population of East Africa descended here tomorrow it would be a disaster, both for Kenya and for us. A situation of panic has been created; there is panic in Kenya and here. There is fear in both places. We may have got ourselves into a situation when there is very little alternative now to this Bill, but one must consider the alternatives that were possible. I do not believe that the British people are united in support of this Measure. Such letters as I have received from my constituents prove that the majority of them want me to vote against the Bill.
The British people are very divided on this issue. They see the force of the moral obligation inherited from a previous Government—it would be strange, indeed, if the British people did not understand a moral obligation after it was shown to be there—but, as practical people, they say that we cannot sustain a sudden arrival of that nature. That is their dilemma. In that real dilemma of feeling, emotion and morality, the Government's job is to give the people a lead.
If the Prime Minister and the other members of the Government had at an earlier stage made a clear statement that they intended to honour their pledge but intended to make voluntary arrangements with the Kenya Government, this whole situation need not have arisen. Even now it is not too late to take such a course. There are alternatives. It is not a choice between breaking one's word and being flooded out with people with whom we cannot cope. It is sad that the Prime Minister and other leading political figures have not been able to give our people the moral lead to which they would undoubtedly have responded.
Looking at the situation in Kenya, I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend for St. Marylebone that the distinction between Kenyanisation and Africanisation is more theoretical than real. I regret it very much. The parallel


I see with the position of the Asians in Kenya today is that of the Jews in Germany. It is a refugee problem. I do not suggest that the Asians will be put in gas chambers, and so on, but I do suggest that the motivation of those who are stirring hatred against the Asians in Kenya is similar to that of those who stirred up hatred against the Jews in Germany.
Let us remember another point—a minor point, but one that the House should remember. It is that one of the reasons why the Asians are so unpopular in Kenya is that, to their great credit, they refused to have anything to do with the obscenities and outrages of the Mau Mau some years ago in Kenya. That has been neither forgotten nor forgiven. I do not recall that because I want to make the situation more difficult, but if one is against racialism one must be consistent and condemn it wherever it occurs.
I am not one of those who hate the party opposite. I believe that Socialism is misguided and wrong. I am not a Socialist. I believe that the present Government are the most incompetent we have ever had. But I have a respect for the idealism which has animated the Labour movement as such. It is a different form of idealism from Conservative idealism, but, though I do not share it, I respect it. The one part of that idealism that I do share and respect is the concern for racial equality. It is not the least distressing part of this extremely distressing period we are in—this shameful period—that it should have been the party that has so often in the past taken a stand on these issues that should be adding this latest instalment of man's inhumanity to man.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I rather think that I recognise the final words used by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). They are from a work written by an eminent and immortal constituent of mine—Robert Burns:
Man's inhumanity to man
Makes countless thousands mourn!
I associate myself largely with the hon. Gentleman's enlightened views, and I hope that I do not embarrass him by saying that I agree with almost all he said. I have no racial problem in my con-

stituency, so I am able to bring to this debate an independent and objective judgment. I cannot conceive that anybody from Kenya or anybody from any part of Asia could possibly hope to make a living in South Ayrshire. In my constituency there is only one Jew. The rest could not hope to survive in that hard climate and against that competition. I am the only hon. Member who can claim to have a 100 per cent. Jewish vote in my constituency because he votes for me.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford asked, was there not some other way? There is something to be said for that point of view. We are told about the flood of immigrants who are likely to come here from Kenya and Asia. The Asians are coming under criticism now. No one now talks about the Russians and those from other countries behind the Iron Curtain because they have become comparatively respectable. It is very difficult for me to understand why this flood of immigrants from Kenya wish to come to this unfortunate country. The eminent gentlemen who are called upon to go to Nairobi would do a service to stop this immigration if they told the simple facts about what is happening in this country at present.
They should be warned about the misery and horror that might come to Asians if they settled down in St. Marylebone, Bexley or Streatham. I am not talking politically. A picture is painted of these people rushing to this country. They seem to have an idea that Britain is an Eldorado. I do not think it is an Eldorado. If the true picture of what is happening in London at present were presented in its stark simplicity to people waiting to catch a plane in Nairobi they would ask themeslves, "Is this journey really necessary?" and decide to stay at home.
I travel on the tube with Asians, Africans and others. When we are in the tube train together we all belong to a multiracial society. When I come to Westminster I am treated very civilly by a gentleman who may have been born in Asia, and who certainly is coloured. The other night I travelled with him. My mind travels in certain grooves and I asked him, "What rent do you pay?" He said, "I pay £18 a week for rent." I said, "How on earth do you manage


to pay that?" He said, "My wife has to work as well and I have to pay £4 extra for living in this part of London because I happen to be a coloured man." if the facts of what they are likely to meet when they come to Marylebone and Streatham and of what they will have to pay in rent were put to them, a good many of these people would say, "We had better stay under the Kenyatta Government".
9.45 p.m.
We are told that these people represent middle-class society in Kenya. If the economic situation were made clear to them, I could not imagine any of them rushing to take up a room in the slums of Glasgow. There is a waiting list of about 150,000 in Glasgow now, and they would be 150,000-plus. They should, therefore, be told that Great Britain is not a country which they should rush into, without a great deal of premeditation. They should think twice and three times about it. If, instead of the Bill, we had a, "Don't come to Britain" campaign, giving the facts, the Home Secretary would not have such a distasteful task today.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford reminded me that there has been a certain motivation against foreigners. This is nothing new in the history of the House of Commons. About 150 years ago. as the Official Reports of those days show, Members were discussing the same thing. They were discussing how to stop the immigrant flow from Poland and Western Europe. There was a strong anti-Jew and anti-alien campaign at that time. Of course, Members did not say that they were anti-Jew. They said, "We do not think like that. We are not racialist at all. We do not hate the Jews. But economic conditions in the East End of London do not permit us to have any more immigrants coming to this country."
The House of Commons at that time was very enlightened. It allowed these people to come in. [An HON. MEMBER: "Liberal."] Liberal, yes. The Socialists had not arrived then. I ask the House of Commons to say today that an anti-foreigner attitude is a bad attitude. I take the case of the Jews. I shall not help my argument with the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) by saying that, if this principle

had been embodied in legislation 100 years ago, Karl Marx would not have arrived in this country to write "Capital". Hon. Members opposite might say that it would have been a damn good thing if he had been kept out. But the most distinguished Tory Prime Minister of the last century was a Jew, Benjamin Disraeli.
The spirit which existed in those days, an ignorant anti-foreigner attitude to these problems, is an element in the motivation for this Bill. That is one reason why I voted against it last night. I remember the time when the Irish were under similar suspicion, when people said, "Let us not have Irish here". I am an immigrant, a Welsh aborigine living in Scotland. This anti-foreigner feeling can be expressed against the Irish, against the Jews, against the blacks, and it is now being expressed against the Asians.
The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) conjured up other nightmares. He went even further. He started in advance an international campaign against the Chinese. He tried to make my blood curdle by asking what would happen in Hong Kong if the time came when the Chinese won the argument against us there and we had to face the problem of a million Chinese coming to this country—a bogey, bogey nightmare argument once again. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are very anti-Chinese because they are anti-Communist. But supposing the Chinese Government succeeded in regaining Hong Kong, with or without a military conflict—we should have the same position—

The Chairman: I am waiting for the hon. Gentleman to address his argument to the Amendment.

Mr. Hughes: This is my last point, Sir Eric. I should not have dreamt of raising the matter if it had not been produced as an argument by the right hon. Member for Streatham. He asked what would happen if there were a situation similar to that in Kenya and 1 million Chinese from Hong Kong, who are now British subjects, decided to come here. That would be a pretty problem for us. I do not understand why hon. Members opposite, who believe that Communism is worse than death, would refuse to let the Chinese come here because they were


running away from Communism. Therefore, hon. Members opposite are involved in a good many contradictions.
I am not influenced by the bogey, bogey scare stuff that emanates from the feverish brain of the right hon. Member for Streatham. I believe that there is some substance in the argument that in this matter the right hon. Gentleman has too much influence in the House, and that his policy has too much influence on the attitude and policy of the Government.

Sir J. Foster: I wanted merely to add one piece of statistics to the debate and to examine the number of people that the Bill would affect outside Africa. For example, 600,000 Tamils in Ceylon are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and their passports, if they applied to leave Ceylon, would have to be granted by the High Commission there.
There are two sources of such United Kingdom citizens, those who are real United Kingdom citizens because their passports are granted by the United Kingdom. The first source is something like the Kenya Independence Act where there is a special Statute and the ordinary operation of the British Nationality Act, 1948. Section 13 of that Act says that if a British subject is in a Commonwealth country which becomes independent, and that country passes a citizenship law which does not include him, he automatically becomes a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies whose passport will be granted by the United Kingdom. Because South Africa was in the Commonwealth when the Act was passed, many of the Indians in South Africa have a right to a United Kingdom passport.
I do not know the situation in Australia, but if the aborigines are not full Australian citizens they are all citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The argument cuts both ways. It magnifies the constitutional importance of the Clause and perhaps provides an argument for the Government to say that the peril might be all the greater.

Mr. A H. Macdonald: Are the Australian Government proposing to expel the aborigines? If not, what is the relevance of what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying?

Sir J. Foster: I did not say that the Australian Government were going to do so, but the Bill affects a much larger number of people than has been suggested in the debate. It affects all citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who became so automatically by the operation of Section 13 of the Act. That is an additional point against the Bill. While much of the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire was amusing, one must feel desperately sorry for these people, and it is not really the case that they could be warned against coming here because they are going to have their living taken away from them and there is no other place for them to come except the United Kingdom.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and I have much in common. He and I like bishops but neither of us would abort the Liberals. He quoted figures, as did my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), and now we have the figures produced by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster). We are in the position of having lies, damned lies and statistics.
But the point about all these figures is less important than the question of control, which in turn is not so important as the question of entry. I voted for the Second Reading because I believe that a measure of control is necessary. I believe this not because I want to see control in itself, but because of the problems which exist in our cities which cannot be ignored.
Having said that, I cannot accept this Clause as a whole, because if there is a problem of unemployment in our cities, people of European descent are going to add to it; if there is a shortage of housing, people of European descent are going to need houses; and if there is a strain on the social services, people of European descent will be putting a strain upon them. To argue that these Asians should not come because others, whose mothers came from Ireland come here is a bad argument. The point has been reached where one must either treat all people in exactly the same way or must not support this Clause.
I am particularly distressed that my right hon. Friend could not bring himself


to make a point which I thought he was on the verge of making. I hoped he would say that, if these people in the end found themselves without jobs and homes, they could come here. I can understand that he wants to negotiate with the Kenyan Government, that he wants to say to them, "This is our quota. Let us see what rate of Africanisation you are carrying out so that we can consider what sort of arrangements we can make to bring people here and absorb them". If he can take that sort of prudent course, why cannot he say so now? The problem is still there, whether or not he concedes it. The basic question of treating people alike is fundamental, and it makes me unable to support the Clause.

Mr. John Nott: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), I have been waiting

Division No.71]
AYES
[10.1p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Alldritt, Walter
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hunter, Adam


Allen, Scholefield
Delargy, Hugh
Hynd, John


Anderson, Donald
Dempsey, James
Irvine, A, J. (Edge Hill)


Archer, Peter
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se amp; Spenb'gh)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dobson, Ray
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Doig, Peter
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Baxter, William
Eadie, Alex
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Beaney, Alan
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bence, Cyril
Ellis, John
Kelley, Richard


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
English, Michael
Kenyon, Clifford


Bidwell, Sydney
Ennals, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Biffen, John
Farr, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Binns, John
Fernyhough, E.
Lawson, George


Bishop, E. S.
Foot, Michavel (Ebbw Vale)
Leadbitter, Ted


Blackburn, F.
Ford, Ben
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Forrester, john
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Boardman, H.
Fowler, Gerry
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Body, Richard
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gardner, Tony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bradley, Tom
Ginsburg W.E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Goodhart, Philip
Lomas, Kenneth


Brooks, Edwin
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Longden, Gilbert


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gourlay, Harry
Louhhlin, Charles


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gregory Arnold
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson


Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.W.)
Griffiths Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
McBride, Neil


Buchan, Norman
Gurden, Harold
McCann, John


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacColl, James


Cant, R. B.
Hamling, William
McGuire, Michael


Carmichael, Neil
Hannan, William
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Harper, Joseph
Maclennan, Robert


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Haseldine, Norman
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Chapman, Donald
Hattersley, Roy
McNamara, J. Kevin


Coe, Denis
Hazell, Bert
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Concannon, J. D.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Manuel, Archie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hiley, Joseph
Mapp, Charles


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hirst, Geoffrey
Marks, Kenneth


Dalkeith, Earl of
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mason, Roy


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Maude, Angus


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hoy, James
Mawby, Ray


Davies, Dr Ernest (Stretford)
Huckfield, Leslie
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mellish, Robert

for 12 hours yesterday and today to speak. I was not therefore particularly amenable to the very tactful and pleasant suggestion of my right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary that we might bring this debate to an end—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Proceedings on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and the Education Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

The House Divided: Ayes 218, Noes 26.

Mikardo, Ian
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Tomney, Frank


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Price, William (Rugby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Montgomery, Fergus
Probert, Arthur
Urwin, T. W.


Moonman, Eric
Randall, Harry
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rees, Merlyn
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wallace, George


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Richard, Ivor
Watkins, David (Consett)


Moyle, Roland
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon amp; Radnor)


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Murray, Albert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
White, Mrs. Eirene


Neal, Harold
Russell, Sir Ronald
Whitlock, William


Oakes, Gordon
Ryan, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Ogden, Eric
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


O'Malley, Brian
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Oswald, Thomas
Silkin, Rt. Hn, John (Deptford)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Small, William
Winnick, David


Paget, R. T.
Snow, Julian
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Palmer, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Woof, Robert


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Yates, Victor


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Swingler, Stephen



Pavitt, Laurence
Taverne, Dick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)
Mr. Eric G. Varley and


Pentland, Norman
Thornton, Ernest
Mr. loan L. Evans.


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Tinn, James





NOES


Bessell, Peter
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Nott, John


Booth, Albert
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Orme, Stanley


Crawshaw, Richard
Hawkins, Paul
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Henig, Stanley
Vickers, Dame Joan


Dickens, James
Hooson, Emlyn
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Faulds, Andrew
Jeger. Mrs. Lena(H'b'namp;St.P'cras.S.)
Whitaker, Ben


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)



Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lee, John (Reading)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foster, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric
Mr, David Steel and


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Macdonald, A. H.
Dr. M. P. Winstanley.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Nott: Having just voted to curtail the business of the House and also my own speech, I must naturally thank the Government and their Whips for allowing me to continue with what I have been waiting to say for over twelve hours.
First of all I am delighted that the Home Secretary, who has had a fair amount of business with important Commonwealth gentlemen throughout the day, is now back in his place. We understand that he has had a number of important talks out of the Committee. I hope he has been having chapatties and other interesting delicacies with the visitors he has had. I want to take up one or two of the points which he made during the answers which he gave about an hour or two ago to some of the points which had been raised earlier.
Some of my hon. Friends have said that they voted for this Bill last night with a heavy heart. I only hope that

when the devision on Clause 1 comes along some of them will vote against Clause 1 and go home to bed with rather lighter hearts, because certainly as the debate has proceeded I have felt that the concessions which the Home Secretary has made—

Mr. Hirst: On a point of order. Is it possible to have less noise without the Chamber? I cannot hear the speech.

The Chairman: Order. I am not the only one who is having difficulty in hearing the hon. Member. May I appeal for less noise?

Mr. Nott: I was just saying that I believe most of the concessions and the points which the Home Secretary has made add greater problems and more anomalies than faced us when we voted on the Bill last night.
The reason why I think this has arisen is that he has conceded that a man thrown out of Kenya will of course be received in this country. The Home Secretary has made this concession. He said, "It is not our wish to create Stateless people, and if someone is rejected and thrown out of Kenya by the Kenyan


Government, then we are civilised men"—I believe those are the words he used—" and we will accept him into this country". I would like to ask him, if this is the case, what is the object of the 1,500 quota? Surely it makes a complete nonsense of what we were debating on Second Reading yesterday. If the number of Kenyan Asians who are to come into this country is to be based on need, is to be based on applications to the High Commissioner in Nairobi and in other places, and if there is to be a flexible quota, which is not going to have an upper limit or a lower limit or even a mean limit, then what does the quota mean? It becomes a completely meaningless figure. It has thrown up for the first time one of the most ludicrous anomalies of the Bill. Many of us who voted against the Bill last night saw what would develop as we went along.
10.15 p.m.
As the debate has proceeded, we have had a more reasonable view of what was the precise danger from the Kenya Asians. Before Second Reading, we had a campaign whipped up in the Press, which I regarded with some distaste, that there would be millions of people descending on this country unless the Bill went through. Many hon. Members opposite and many of my hon. Friends have dealt with this point. Had this Bill not been contemplated, I believe that no more than 40,000 Kenya Asians would have come here, and over a period of years. They could have been integrated easily into our national life if proper dispersal facilities had been provided for them at the ports.
For the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) to talk about Hong Kong and Mauritius is to draw a great red herring over the whole issue. Those of us who oppose the Bill feel no obligation to members of the New Territories who may receive British nationality at some forthcoming Independence. That is something which may happen later on, but we are not concerned about giving them United Kingdom passport rights when their Independence comes along. Neither are we concerned particularly with the Malays, the Fijians and the other million holders of United Kingdom passports, because they already have local citizenship in those countries. Our concern about the Kenya Asians is that an

undertaking was given them by the British Government, and everyone agrees that it was an undertaking, except the right hon. Member for Streatham. Those people have United Kingdom citizenship because they believed that the British Government would honour their obligation. The whole question of the million people who hold United Kingdom passports is irrelevant, because we are not particularly concerned with those who have local citizenship. They will not become stateless persons. It is on that point that I and many of my hon. Friends oppose the Bill.
We accept and recognise the social tensions which are set up by unbridled immigration. We are as well aware of that as those hon. Members who support the Bill. I live in Islington, which has some of the worst social tensions in the country. As one hon. Member opposite said yesterday, I can be as pure as the driven snow, because there are no racial problems in my own constituency. That is fair comment. Nevertheless, I can understand the anger of a family whose child is in an immigrant class at school. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) seemed to think that people who oppose the Bill do not understand the social tensions which arise in a few of our great cities. Certainly we understand them, but that does not alter the fact that we have a solumn obligation to these Kenya Asians, whatever the Home Secretary may say.
There may be 200,000 of them in East Africa. In practice, however, probably there are not more than 100,000 in Kenya, and not more than half of them would want to come to this country had not certain people advanced these arguments in the Press and had this Bill not been presented. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) dragged in the French and Scandinavians in the course of his speech yesterday. He asked what would happen if Frenchmen and Scandinavians descended on the country—

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is quite wrong. I did not ask that question. I said that, so far from being a racialist, which is what I understood both the Home Secretary and I were being accused of, if there were a comparable number of


Frenchmen and Scandinavians, I should say exactly the same about them as I say about the persons affected by this Bill. That may be right or wrong, but it has no relation to what I am now accused of by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Nott: I was merely making the point to my right hon. and learned Friend that the majority of those who opposed the Bill were not advocating about unbridled immigration. We were concerning ourselves with the breaking of an undertaking to people holding United Kingdom passports. Therefore, to drag in the Scandinavians and the French and say that if they came to this country the same problem would arise, although it may be fair comment—

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to interrupt, but I said nothing of the kind. I said that if persons of French or Scandinavian origin in comparable numbers were entitled to British passports and unrestricted entry I should say the same thing. I never said that they were entitled to British passports. My hon. Friend must not misrepresent me or I shall have to keep interrupting him.

Mr. Nott: I have no wish to misrepresent my right hon. and learned Friend. His was a purely hypothetical example. My right hon. and learned Friend said if the Scandinavians and the French had United Kingdom passports. They have not. I was using this as an example of the problems which have faced those who oppose the Bill. Unsophisticated people believe that we are advancing arguments on the basis of untrammelled immigration. We are not. We are on the narrow point of 50,000 Kenya Asians who might or might not have come during the next two years. I have no wish to misrepresent my right hon. and learned Friend, and I withdraw anything that may be inaccurate.
I do not regard the Bill as racialist. It is not about keeping Britain white. It is about keeping Britain honest. That is the whole burden of my case. We are not divided in wanting to keep the essential characteristics of the British nation, fair play, fair mindedness and good neighbourliness. We all appreciate that these will go unless we check unbridled immigration. Whether all these problems in our great cities do in practice allow us,

as the British Legislature, to break a solemn undertaking and cancel the United Kingdom passport rights of these people, I very much doubt. I accept that the point has come when we have to cut down still further on immigration. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and many other hon. Members who said that if we are confronted with this problem we must give an alternative. I reluctantly accept the alternative. If there are 60,000 people coming in under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, I would rather see all of them stopped, other than the dependants of those already here, but that is a declining problem. The number of dependants is declining every year, as has been pointed out. [HON. MEMBERS: "No.] I am sorry. If we were to stop the number of people coming in from the West Indies and Pakistan under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act and if we were to curtail the number of vouchers, over a number of years the number of dependants coming in will decline. I am saying that if we have the problem of too much immigration I would reluctantly accept the unfortunate alternative of cutting back on those who receive vouchers and come in under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
The substance of the case of those who support the Bill, the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend, is one of necessity. The argument is that we have to break our word because of necessity. I well remember a debate on an entirely different topic in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) said that necessity has been the creed of tyrants throughout the ages. I am not suggesting that the Home Secretary has any of the attributes of a tyrant. Far from it. He is a charming man. Nevertheless, necessity is a dangerous argument, but that is the one which has been used.
Some people prefer the easier phrase. They would say that force majeure forces us to break a solemn contract which has been entered into freely, but this is the worst kind of force majeure. It is not the British Government renaging on a contract with another State, and we have seen enough of this over the last few years. It is the British Government reneging on a contract with a weak, oppressed, and dependent minority. It used to be—and


I hope it still is—the mark of a civilised nation, a civilised Government, a civilised people, that it had respect for minorities.
As one of my hon. Friends said, there is no reason for a contract when both sides agree. The only reason for a contract is when one side does not agree. This is the whole basis of the law of contract. What is happening here is that one side does not like the contract, and so it is ratting on its obligations. I regard this as deeply offensive, and I do not think that the British nation will live this down.
I have stated my alternative. Reluctant though I would be to do so I would cut down the number of vouchers issued under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.—[HON. MEMBERS: "And the number of dependants? "] I did not refer to dependants. I said that I would cut down the number of vouchers. I would not cut down the number of dependants.

Sir C. Osborne: The majority of people coming in now are dependants. Would my hon. Friend cut down their number?

Mr. Nott: If I said that, I did not mean it. At the moment 8,500 vouchers a year are issued under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. I would cut that down to 3,000, or perhaps even 2,000.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that not all the vouchers were taken up last year?

Mr. Nott: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that only about 4,000 were taken up, so perhaps there is a reason for cutting the figure down to 2,000. I do not advance this argument happily, but, if we are faced with a choice

of alternatives, this seems to be less objectionable than what is now proposed.
It has been said before, but it needs to be said again, that every United Kingdom passport bears the request that the bearer of the passport should pass freely, without let and hindrance, and so on. How can the British Government claim that they are unilaterally going to cancel that passport right for people who, momentarily, are causing some discomfort because there are not proper arrangements at the ports to disperse 50,000 Kenyan Asians over a period of years to different parts of the country? How can they abrogate that undertaking, and expect English people, or Scottish, or Welsh, or Cornish people, to go to Kenya, India, or Malaya and hand their British passports in and expect the country concerned to let them pass freely without let and hindrance, when the British Government themselves have abrogated just these rights for their own citizens?
This is a bad Bill. I think that it is a racialist Bill, but that is not the burden of my argument. It clearly is against certain races. Why do not we say so? Everyone must make up his own mind on this issue. It is not for me to claim that my conscience is worse or better than anyone else's.
This is a dangerous thing to do. It has been the natural law of nations since Roman times that countries have an obligation to look after their own citizens. Maybe we did not mean these people to become our citizens in 1963. Maybe it was all a horrible mistake, but it arose, and we have this obligation, whether we like it or not. We cannot abrogate this moral obligation without retaliation over the years, and the British Government should recognise this if they intend to go through with this Bill tonight.

Mr. Richard: At this late hour, after what has been virtually a Second Reading debate, I shall not detain the House for long. I have sat through almost the whole of the debate. I have listened to all the Front Bench speeches, and to most of the back bench ones. I think that I am now more confused about the objects, the intentions, the purposes, and the provisions of the Bill than I was when I first read it yesterday before the debate started. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said that we must try to get the figures right, because it is on them that one bases one's conclusions. Various different assessments have been given, inside and outside the House. One which was bandied about in the debate yesterday was that if we did nothing about the problem of Kenyan Asians, as many as 1¼ million people in comparable situations would have the right, under United Kingdom passports, to enter the United Kingdom.
10.30 p.m.
Is it not correct that the Kenyan Asians are in a unique and distinct position, because they are the only group among these people whose sole nationality is British, and that, in Hong Kong and Mauritius, and the other countries which have been mentioned, there is a dual nationality? Second, how many Kenyan Asians are there?

Sir J. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is not right. The 800,000 Tamils in Ceylon have solely United Kingdom passports.

Mr. Richard: I must say that that is the first time that that has been raised in the debate, but I will certainly check the matter to see whether I have made a mistake.
One estimate of the scope of the problem is that there are 130,000 Asians in Kenya, another that there are 200,000 in the whole of East Africa, another, given by the Asians themselves, that there are about 78,000 left in Kenya, of whom about 40,000 might want to come to the United Kingdom. These are all different statistics, but the crucial figure to which the Committee is entitled, and which we have not had, is the Government's expert assessment of the number of Kenyan Asians who might want to come. There is no point in arguing about how many there might or might not be in Kenya;

we must decide what is the scope of the problem for the United Kingdom in the immediate future.
Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend, in reply to the debate or at a later stage, to give us the Government's assessment. If that assessment is that the number who might come in the next 12 months is, say, 2,000 families, the Bill is a nonsense. Why are we spending two days discussing a problem of that size? If, on the other hand, it is that, within 12 or 18 months, as many as 20,000 families might come, that is a different problem and might give some support to the Bill. What is the Government's assessment?
Was a pledge given or not given? It has been said with great force, mainly by hon. Members opposite, that the only person in the Committee who does not now believe that a pledge was given by the previous Administration is the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). But let us assume in his favour that no specific pledge was given to the Kenyan Asians. With deep respect, that makes the position worse and not better. What the right hon. Gentleman is then saying is that, during the negotiations, he never applied his mind to this problem. At least, I assume that he did not, because if he considered it and left it in this sorry state, he bears sole responsibility for this situation.
Moreover, he did it at a time when he left everyone else in ignorance of the situation, including the Kenya Asians, although the right hon. Gentleman is now apparently disclaiming responsibility. If he did not consider it and if they were left in the air, he must accept that he should have considered it. That being so, what has happened since? The answer is that a large number of innocent people relied on what they thought was the pledged word of Her Majesty's Government, who have altered their position to what has now turned out to be their detriment. That is the position, whether or not a pledge was given in legalistic terms and whether or not one reads the small print on the contract. Whatever is said about the obligation or non-obligation on the part of the Government, a large number of innocent people relied on what they letting them down. I therefore could believed to be our word, and we are


not find it in me to support the Bill last night.
One might call this Clause the kith and kin part of the Bill. The criteria for the allotment of vouchers is now to be need rather than a straight arithmetical calculation of 1,500 people. That does not make the Clause better but worse because we are, in effect, saying to the people of Kenya—to the world if it has ears to hear and eyes to read—" For an Asian to come into Britain he must prove need. For a white man to come here, he does not have to prove need."
If need is to be the criterion of entry, the Clause becomes even more repugnant and repulsive than it was. Despite the generous concessions which the Home Secretary has tried to make tonight, I fear that, as the Bill stands, I cannot find it in me tonight to support the Clause.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question, That the Amendment be made, put accordingly and negatived.

Mr. Paget: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 10, at the end to add:
(2) (a) Nothing, in the foregoing subsection shall apply to any citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or to a dependent of any citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who has in the country of his residence—

(i) been expelled, or
(ii) been denied the right to continue in the employment or type of employment in which he has been wont to work, or
(iii) been prevented from carrying on the business he has been wont to conduct, or
(iv) has in any other way been denied the right to earn his living and support his dependants;

(b) any citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall be entitled to obtain from the Consul in the country of his residence a certificate stating that one of the conditions set out in the preceding subsection applies to him and such certificate shall be accepted by all immigration officers.
The last two speakers pointed out that the real problem here is that we must

protect people who have only one passport. I wholeheartedly support that view. These people need protection and they have been pledged protection. I have sought in the Amendment to put those who need special protection—either because their liberty or livelihood is threatened—in the same happy position as those with white grandmothers.
One should consider for a moment the circumstances in which this pledge was given and this protection granted. We were giving independence to the African Government of Kenya very shortly after the Mau Mau event; to people whose credentials did not give a great feeling of security to those placed under them, and particularly to an unpopular minority. The Indians in Kenya have always been an unpopular minority—not, I think, particularly because of their conduct, but because they were the middle-class of Kenya. The middle-class is always hated by a proletarian and peasant society—far more than an aristocracy. This may be one of the misfortunes of the Liberal Party. As Bismark observed, one could always dish the Liberals by granting universal suffrage—

Mr. Thorpe: If I may put the hon. and learned Gentleman right historically, Bismark said that the great danger was to fight a war on two fronts, and the events of the last 10 days have shown that the Liberal Party has only to fight on one front.

Mr. Paget: If I may say so, I entirely fail to recognise the relevance of that intervention.
My point is that here was an unpopular minority needing protection, and that it was promised protection could not have been made more clear than it was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) in the letter which he wrote to the Spectator. That letter is worth quoting because, oddly enough, it has not so far been quoted and written into the debate. In writing to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), the right hon. Member for Enfield, West said:
If I understand your position, correctly, it is, as you told the Sunday Telegraph, that it was certainly never intended to provide a privileged backdoor entry into the United Kingdom '. Leaving aside the emotive words. that is exactly what was proposed: special entry in certain circumstances which have


now arisen. We did it. We meant to do it. And in any event we had no other choice.
That was the situation: the rights, the protection, the circumstances, the pledge. Now those circumstances have arisen.
We have the case of Africanisation. It is called Kenyanisation, but it is only Kenyanisation to the extent that those Asians who have taken Kenyan citizenship get an advantage over those Asians who have not done so. It certainly does not mean that they get equality of treatment with the negro population of Kenya—they do not. The whole circumstances here are squeezing on the members of this Asian minority, who recognise and know that they are on the way out—

Sir Harmer Nicholls: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman say how many Asians were accepted by the Kenya Government? I gather from his earlier intervention that 20,000 applied and were not accepted. How many were accepted?

Mr. Paget: I think that about 60,000 were accepted. None the less, for instance, in Nairobi the city council yesterday rescinded all licences of Asians in the city market. This is the kind of thing that is happening. It is only as between Asians that citizenship is proving an advantage.
Something else has to be recognised in order to put oneself into the position of these people, and by my Amendment I seek to do what I can to allay their fears in this dangerous position. Among the dangerous features of the situation there is not only the creeping Africanisation but doubt as to the capacity of the African Government to protect them. The record of Africa on this has not been a happy one. In the Congo, in Ghana, in Nigeria and in some of the former French colonies, the capacity to protect the alien went. The first to suffer were the Syrians and the Asians. We have not been entirely successful in Africa in finding a successor to the colonialism which we brought to an end.
10.45 p.m.
African nationalism has not really arisen from African institutions. The African nationalists are people who had a foreign education in mission schools and foreign universities. They are people who speak a foreign language. No Afri-

can national has yet adopted an African language. Government is confined to that very small minority who can both speak and think in a foreign language. The institutions are foreign institutions. So all that we have is the colonial system taken over by a very small alien-trained African minority. It is a minority which has had difficulty in renewing itself, in refreshing itself, in taking support from a foreign country, and so this sort of black colonialism we have has proved unstable and a very poor defence of minorities.
Let us hope that Kenya will be the exception, but after four years there is little sign of it. We would not be human if we did not recognised the terrifying situation for an unprotected minority when it sees the escape hatch locked behind it. This is the terrifying thing here and I am seeking to provide that the people endangered shall have the right to escape. The movement of the Asians to what is their own country and their only country—that is, here—is not going to be decided by my right hon. Friend; it is going to be decided by the Kenyans.
I have heard various statements of the law, and I am bound to say that I have not gone along with them. I think the law here is perfectly plain. I will quote the relevant passage from Oppenheim's International Law, the eighth edition, volume I. There is the right in a nation to protect its citizens even when they are in other countries. It is coupled with an obligation of a nation to accept back its citizens when they are expelled or sent out of another country. That obligation is perfectly plain. It is set out here as the concommitant of the right to protect. There is the right and the duty:
The duty is that of receiving on its territory such of its citizens as are not allowed to remain on the territory of other States. Since no State is obliged by the Law of Nations to allow foreigners to remain within its boundaries, it may, for many reasons, happen that certain individuals are expelled from all foreign countries. The home State of expelled persons is bound to receive them on the home territory.
I do not think that there is any doubt about that. I have never heard it questioned as a matter of international law.
The situation, therefore, is simply this. If these people are sent here, we have no option but to take them. We cannot relieve ourselves of the law because we cannot send them anywhere else. They


come here, and we must accept them. In the first part of the Amendment, therefore, where I provide that the Clause shall not apply to people who have been expelled, I am stating no more than the existing law. I hope that the Government will accept that.
Next, I deal with the person whose living has been threatened, who has
been denied the right to continue in the employment or type of employment in which he has been wont to work, or been prevented from carrying on the business he has been wont to conduct, or has in any other way been denied the right to earn his living and support his dependants.
I understood that a great deal of this, in theory and principle, was conceded by my right hen. Friend. I found myself far more moved by what he said tonight than I was yesterday, just as, conversely, I found myself much less moved by what the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said today than by what he said yesterday. I thought that he was quite good yesterday, but not today.
It seemed to me that this principle was accepted. I believe that there would be a tremendous relief to the nerves of the people in Kenya if these assurances were accepted by the Government. In principle, I believe, they have done so. If they put it into the Bill, it would settle those nerves. If it settles the nerves, it stops the rush to come. There will not be a rush to leave. These people have roots. They have been in Kenya a long time. They are nervous and anxious. They do not want to go. They will hang on as long as they can. But if the door is to be locked, that is the fear, the terrifying claustrophobia, and they feel they must break out. The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) has a formidable responsibility here for the panic he has created.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, if that kind of statement had been made with all the authority of the Government at an earlier date, the whole problem would never have arisen?

Mr. Paget: That may be so. I say frankly that, instead of falling in behind the right hon. Member for Streatham, the Government should have quietened the fears which he had so irresponsibly

aroused. But that harm has been done. We have the Bill. Let us say how it will be operated and calm the fears now. That will be the most effective way of making it a relatively slow and ordered movement.
Even if it did build up to 100,000 people in the end—I think that that is very unlikely—these are economically valuable people. We have not got an excess of builders, plumbers or carpenters, the people who are being pushed out now. It is a relief to our economy. It is a relief to our housing problem, because these are well-to-do people who can not only build houses but can finance their own housing requirements. It is not a strain on our education system, because these are people speaking English as their first language and with the English educational background.
The only case against them is that their faces are the wrong colour. That is all there is. It is an appeasement of the Alf Garnett mentality, which does exist. It is an indecent feeling which can perhaps best be expressed in the words of Alf Garnett—too many bloody niggers. That is the kind of feeling we are appeasing, because there is no economic, housing or education case. We should not do it.

The Deputy Chairman: With the Amendment we are also taking Amendment No. 24, in Clause 2, page 3, line 5, at end insert:
(c) any person who being a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies has no right of re-entry to his country of domicile.
and Amendment No. 25, in Clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert:
(c)(i) holds a United Kingdom passport and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or who holds such a passport issued in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland, and
(ii) has been deprived of his right to work or his citizenship by the country in which he was ordinarily resident immediately prior to his entry into the United Kingdom or at the time when he seeks entry into the United Kingdom.
A provisional selection has been put up in the Lobby. Amendment No. 24 will not be for a separate debate, but a Division may be allowed if it is required.

Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order. You indicated, Mr. Irving. that a Division might be allowed


on Amendment No. 24. Does the same apply to Amendment No. 25?

The Deputy Chairman: I am afraid not. The Chairman has not selected Amendment No. 25 for a Division.

Mr. Sandys: I wish to raise just one point which I believe needs elucidation. Hon. Members have referred to the question of the precedent we are creating.
Perhaps I should raise this matter later. Are we to have a debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill?

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I cannot indicate that until the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, comes on the Order Paper.

Mr. Sandys: I wish to raise what I believe to be a very important point on which I should like clarification from the Home Secretary. It has been alleged that a precedent will not be created for granting similar rights in the case of other colonies which may become independent. Yesterday I particularly mentioned Mauritius. Various hon. Members have said that that is not really relevant because Mauritius is in a different position.
The fact is that Section 2(2) of the Kenya Independence Act, 1963, is identical to Clause 2(2) of the Mauritius Independence Bill, which has passed through the House, has been approved by another place, and is awaiting the Royal Assent. Therefore, we shall find ourselves in exactly the same position with regard to Mauritius as we have with regard to Kenya. Am I correct in that interpretation?

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Would the right hon. Gentleman help the Chair by saying whether the Act which he has compared to the Mauritius Independence Bill refers to the matters in the Amendment?

Mr. Sandys: I thought that it did, Mr. Irving, but I have concluded what I wish to say.

The Deputy Chairman: I should indicate to the right hon. Gentleman that unless it relates to the Amendment I should be unable to allow a reply.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. I should have thought, having heard what my right hon. Friend said and read the Amendment, that it is relevant. The point is on all fours and should be answered on those grounds.

The Deputy Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would help me by passing me the Act so that I can see that that is so.

Mr. Heffer: I support the Amendment because it is extremely sensible. If the Government are prepared to accept it, it will go a long way towards solving the immediate problems concerning the Asian minority in Kenya.
During the previous debate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary talked about a flexible approach to the quota. This was somewhat confusing, because on the one hand we were told that it would be flexible but on the other we were told that it was important to have a fixed figure. We were also told that if certain people found themselves in difficult situations, were losing their jobs and homes and so on, then they would be treated sympathetically and may be allowed in. When pressed on this my right hon. Friend made the point that this was what was meant by being flexible. If this is what flexibility means, then this Amendment covers that point and it should be accepted. If the Government reject it, we cannot have any confidence in the idea that the quota will be flexible.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: Why?

Mr. Heffer: Because the Amendment spells it out in detail. It talks of any citizen who has:
… been expelled, or been denied the right to continue in the employment or type of employment in which he has been wont to work, or been prevented from carrying on the business he has been wont to conduct …
And so on.
We are told that there is this quota, but people may find themselves in this situation, and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has quoted examples of people already in this situation. It may be that there will be more people in this situation than is allowed for by the quota. If this is so, the acceptance of


this Amendment means that they will be taken into this country.

Mr. Callaghan: Why?

Mr. Heffer: I have answered that once. If my right hon. Friend wants me to waste time so that I should go over it again I will do so, but I will not be very popular with my hon. Friends. I have explained very clearly, and I hope sensibly. why I am arguing this point. My hon. Friend can say why he disagrees when he replies. If I am wrong, let him convince me. I would like some assurance on this.

Mr. Callaghan: I have given assurances on the quota. What I am trying to understand, and I still do not understand, is why my hon. Friend cannot have confidence that a quota will be operated flexibly unless rigid conditions are written into the Bill.

Mr. Heffer: The point is very clear. We are not writing figures in but conditions in which people are likely to find themselves. If my right hon. Friend does not understand that it is unfortunate, but I assume that most hon. Members fully understand my point.

Mr. Thorpe: Is what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to say that, having heard verbal undertakings from this Home Secretary, he wishes to give statutory effect to them, so that this and any future Home Secretary will be bound?

Mr. Heffer: I wanted to allay the fears of the Asians and to help to stem the flow and ensure that the people involved in Kenya will understand that if they are placed in this position there genuinely is flexibility in the quota. That is the point I am trying to make.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The point the hon. Gentleman is making is absolutely plain; he could not make it plainer. The confusion is in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Heffer: I agree. When the statement was made, I said to one of my hon. Friends that I was in complete confusion about the statement of my right hon. Friend because it seemed that we would have a flexible quota and later we were told that it would be a fixed quota. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am a simple soul. I tried very hard to understand the state

ment of my right hon. Friend. We should have this matter clarified, and the best way to clarify it is for the Government to accept this Amendment, which is a very good and important Amendment.
I should like to make a point about the Asians involved and why they should be allowed in, particularly under the Amendment. I remember very well the debate in the House on the immigration Act, and particularly the labour vouchers. We were told that the great problem was all the unskilled people coming here. It was all right to allow in skilled people, lawyers and doctors, but not unskilled people. Now we have the reverse. We are now told that the fact that they are unskilled makes no difference. We cannot have it both ways. The problem is that they both have dark faces.
Unfortunately, our politicians here are pandering to the more backward elements in the community, in the same way as the politicians in Kenya appear, unfortunately, to be pandering to the more backward elements in their community. Two wrongs do not make a right. I do not know whether "Kenyanisation" means "Africanisation". I have not gone into that matter as thoroughly as perhaps I should have done. There may be a racial element in it. But it does not follow that we must have a racial element—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting very wide of the Amendments, which are concerned with matters like expulsion, the right of re-entry in certain circumstances and employment. He must speak to the Amendments.

Mr. Heffer: You are quite right, Mr. Irving. But I think that I am speaking to them in the sense that I am trying to point out that the Asians are being expelled or being forced to leave the country on a basis of possible racial tension in the country. It does not follow that we should not accept them here.
I know that hon. Members who have been sitting in the Chamber for a long time wish to speak and therefore I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. No doubt they, like myself, wish to vote against the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. But, meantime, I will vote for this Amendment, because it is better than nothing.
In a sense, the Amendment is still a restricting Amendment. We have always had a wonderful record in this country that anybody who had been oppressed, irrespective of whether he came from our Colonies or had a British passport, was likely to find a home here. This relates to the Amendment, Mr. Irving, because it proves the point which I am making why we should accept it.
We talk in terms of the Huguenots who came here. Somebody said to me, "Have you got any immigrants in your constituency?" I said, "They are all immigrants". He said, "What do you mean? They are all coloured?" I said, "Most of them happen to be white-faced, but their grandfathers and fathers all came from Ireland, North and South". I once said in the House that the problem was that of the mixed marriages between Catholics and Protestants.
So as far as I am concerned, we always welcome into our country people who—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is not dealing with the conditions which should be applied for entry into this country which are specified in the Amendment. He must keep to the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Heffer: With due respect, Mr. Irving, I am, because I am pointing out—

The Deputy Chairman: I must say with respect that the hon. Member is not keeping to the Amendment. He must do so.

Mr. Heffer: I am trying to point out, Mr. Irving, that people who previously have lost their jobs and their homes—for example, the people of Ireland, whom at that time we physically controlled—nevertheless were welcomed into this country. That is relevant to the Amendment because, if we accept it, we are accepting precedents which we have set and we will be continuing a tradition of which I am rather proud and of which everyone in the country should be proud.
To safeguard the rights of the Asians who are being subjected to all sorts of pressures, and also to stem the flow, because for them to have the knowledge that they can come here if they are subjected to those pressures is wise and sensible, the Committee should accept the Amendment.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: In the remarks which I am about to make I will, naturally, try to keep as close to the Amendment as possible, but this is the first occasion when I have uttered in the debates of the last two days and I was one of those who supported the Bill on Second Reading. I did so with a heavy heart, however, because although I recognise that the subsequent Clauses eliminate certain anomalies which have crept in, and which certainly should have been dealt with long before, I felt that Clause 1 inevitably involved the breaking of a pledge.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) has left the Chamber—oh, I beg his pardon. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I ought to say to the hon. Gentleman that the pledge is not a matter which he can deal with on the Amendment.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order. Is it true that the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) is now the Leader of the Conservative Party?

The Deputy Chairman: Sir Harry Legge-Bourke.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I would not, of course, wish in any way to disobey any Ruling which you might give, Mr. Irving, but in the Amendment we are dealing with certain qualifications to the Clause which, in the opinion of some hon. Members, would go some way to eliminate the disadvantages which flow from our having had to break our word. Therefore, I would humbly submit to you that to that extent the fact is relevant that a pledge has had to be broken.
11.15 p.m.
I am deeply conscious of the fact that when the passports were issued to people in Kenya those who received them assumed that they would have equal rights with those of anyone else in possession of a British passport. Because I assumed that they looked upon those passports—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. It has been noticed by many hon. Members that almost every time the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) gets up and is called and makes a speech he immediately goes out. Would it not be


better if he would stay and listen to other hon. Members?

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): That is not a matter for the Chair.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The speech I am trying to make is not an easy one. I would ask for a little indulgence from the Committee, and that there should be as few as possible interruptions on points of that sort. Having supported the Bill because of the other Clauses in it, I have had grave misgivings about this Clause 1 which we are now seeking to amend. I hope I shall be able to remain in order in expressing my views about this Amendment.
As I understand it, it is an Amendment trying to ensure that there is an element of compassion in the operation of the Clause. An element of compassion. This in itself brings into consideration other things than mere legality. Many criteria have been suggested for the application of the Bill, but throughout it all we have been trying to ensure that, so far as possible, everybody is clear what the law is. The Clause involves changing the law from what those who have British passports in Kenya thought the law was. What the Amendment seeks to do is to bring in an element of compassion in order to make the change in the law not quite as severe as otherwise it would be.
I am glad the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has returned to the Chamber, because it is his Amendment, and I listened with the greatest care to what he had to say. In case he missed my last remark, let me repeat that, as I understand it, his Amendment is designed to bring in an element of compassion in order to ensure that the change we are by this Clause making in the law as it stood should bear less severely on certain people than otherwise it would. An element of compassion is brought in, for the sake of certain people who are not able to continue with what they were doing in their own country before their right of entry here was changed. It is also to ensure that if they are kicked out of the country in which they are working, or in which they are living in retirement, they can still use their British passports to get into this country.
Those are laudable purposes, it would seem to me, and it would seem to me that while we can accept the other Clauses in the Bill this Clause 1 should be dropped. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said just now, had it been known some months ago by anybody expelled from his country, not able to continue earning his living in that country, not able to do the job he had been doing, not able to carry on the busines he had been wont to conduct, deprived of the right to earn his living and support his dependants, that we were to have this new sort of tribunal, we should not, I believe, have had this flood of emigrants from Kenya trying to get into this country.
If I had to choose between the opinions of two of my right hon. Friends on the matter, I would choose that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) rather than that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, because I believe that we have an obligation to these people. However, as Edmund Burke once said, any idealism which is impracticable is in fact spurious. Sometimes we have to recognise that, when circumstances change, we must change the law. As Clause 1 is drafted, we are changing the law drastically, whereas the Amendment introduces an element of compassion and a recognition of the fact that some people will be hurt more than others. While we cannot sustain the position that was capable of implementation before, at least we can cushion some of the ill effects which will otherwise fall upon these people to whom we have had to break our word.
For that reason, although I am not a lawyer and cannot adjudicate upon the correctness of the legal wording of the Amendment, I feel very much inclined to support the hon. and learned Member for Northampton in his Amendment.

Mr. Macdonald: If it is in order, I want to speak to Amendments Nos. 24 and 25, which I understand are being considered with this Amendment. Those two Amendments go to the heart of what many of us feel to be the profound fault of the Bill.
The previous lengthy discussion dealt with what some hon. Members feel to be racialism. We do not know if racialism


is intended. I do not think that it is. But what seems much more important is the possession of United Kingdom passports by these Kenyan Asians and the rights which flow from that possession. The matter is mentioned expressly in Amendment No. 25 and, by implication, in Amendment No. 24.
During Second Reading yesterday, I listened with deep respect to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), in the course of which he made one remark which impressed me greatly. He said:
If you intend to vote against this Bill on conscientious grounds, make sure that you endure to the bitter end."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1263.]
I have been turning that phrase over in my mind and applying it to the possession of a British passport. It occurs to me that, in 1962, we devalued the possession of such a passport. Now, we are—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself to the Amendments, in which we are concerned with the conditions under which entry to this country would be allowed.

Mr. Macdonald: I am trying to do that, Mr. Irving, with specific reference to Amendment No. 24. I wanted to submit that, having devalued the possession of a passport and the rights of free entry without condition that ought to flow from it in 1962, and proposing to do the same again now, I wonder if we embark on this process what the bitter end will be. I am told, also, that on the previous occasion we spent many days discussing the matter, but now we are having only two days. Already the closure has been moved once. I wonder what the bitter end of this will be.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself to either Amendment No. 24 or Amendment No. 25. Amendment No. 24 is concerned with the entry to this country of people who have no right of re-entry to the country of domicile, and is conditional on subsection (ii) which is concerned with employment. The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned either of these matters yet.

Mr. Macdonald: I am sorry if I am misunderstanding the Amendments, Mr. Irving. If I am out of order, I will sit down.
It seems to me that Amendment No. 24 refers to the question of a person who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and therefore has rights flowing from this; rights which the Bill proposes to take away, but which the Amendment, if approved, would mitigate.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman I think has omitted to see subsection (ii) of Amendment 25, which says
has been deprived of his right to work or his citizenship by the country in which he was ordinarily resident immediately prior to his entry into the United Kingdom or at the time when he seeks entry into the United Kingdom.
This is the kernel of the Amendment, and the hon. Gentleman really is not addressing himself to it.

Mr. Macdonald: No, I was not, Mr. Irving—I was addressing myself to Amendment No. 24.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is not doing so.
Amendment No. 24 is concerned with a person who "being a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies has no right of re-entry to his country of domicile." The hon. Gentleman is discussing what happened in 1962, not the Amendments. If he cannot address himself to the Amendments he will have to resume his seat.

Mr. Macdonald: I am sorry I am being a bother to you, Mr. Irving. I will simply say this: surely the possession of a passport conveyed up to now the right to move freely in and out of the country. This would be restricted by the Bill. Amendment No. 24 refers particularly to people whom this debate is really all about. The Bill speaks generally, but we do know that we are speaking about the Kenyan Asians who, if expelled, will have no right of re-entry to the country of their domicile. They are at the heart of this debate. Whatever other extraneous matters we may talk about—such as when hon. Members opposite talk about Australian aborigines or Tamils—we are talking about Kenyan Asians, who are explicitly affected by


this Bill and whom Amendment No. 24 will protect.
This is why it seems to me that Amendment No. 24 is the nub of the problem, and why we should support it if we wish to preserve rights of law—the importance of a passport, and the rights which flow from it. Once that is abrogated, shifting sands appear under our feet and the rule of law disappears.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I want to speak to Amendment No. 24, which broadly attempts to cover the same point as Amendment No. 14 moved by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that my Amendment is more succinct in its wording, and clearer in its intention than his Amendment, although we have a right to ask for a Division on it, I would be happy to accept Amendment No. 14 in place of mine if that was the wish of the Home Secretary.
I hope that throughout the night's proceedings either the Home Secretary or the Parliamentary Secretary will be present. I accept that they both cannot be here, but the last time I spoke on this issue neither was here, and one feels that one is wasting one's sweetness on the desert air. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is here now, and I am forced to repeat a few of the points that I made on a wider Amendment.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not—at least I hope he is not—suggesting that I have not been present during the debate. I was absent for only a short time because I had to meet someone, as was explained to the Committee, and for 20 minutes since. I have sat here since 3.30. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no need for his observation. I know my duty to the House.

Mr. Steel: I was not being critical. I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman could arrange for one Home Office Minister to be here. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that in the spirit in which I meant it.
I repeat the point that I made earlier, arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's statement and that of his hon. Friend on

the previous Amendment. The hon. Gentleman gave a clear undertaking that the Government would not allow a situation to arise in which people who had been expelled from Kenya would be refused entry. The hon. Gentleman made that pretty clear and precise. What I am seeking by Amendment No. 24 is to have that written into the Bill so that everybody in Kenya, and the people affected by the Bill, will know their rights.
I think that it would be wrong of the Government—and I am sure that this is not their intention—to say that they will act in this liberal-minded way only when people have actually been expelled. I do not think that people should have to go through the legal process of being expelled from Kenya before the Government act and accept them into this country.
Earlier today I read a certificate from the Department of Emigration in Nairobi requiring a person to leave on 30th June, 1968. It is at this point that the Government should act. They should not leave the matter uncertain and say that people with this certificate will be allowed here only if they come within the quota. Whether the quota is flexible or inflexible is not the point. These people will know that they have to leave Kenya on a certain date, and they should he assured by the House that they will not be left Stateless or without rights. They should be told that they will be admitted to this country.
This is the effect of Amendment No. 24. It is in many ways the most crucial Amendment that we are to discuss tonight. I have heard many speeches from hon. Members who support the Bill. Though they might be doubtful about voting against the Clause, they might support us on this Amendment, the purpose of which is to introduce an element of compassion into the Bill. If the Government do not give way, I hope that we will be able to get the support of hon. Members to carry the Amendment, but I trust the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we have a fair point. All that I want to do is to translate the Government's intentions into the effect of law to clarify the position for the benefit of the citizens whom we are trying to help.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My hon. Friends and I tabled Amendment No. 25 in the same spirit, and in virtually the


same langauge, as the Amendment that we are discussing. We did so for the purpose which has been adduced, namely, to humanise the administration of the Bill. Having heard my right hon. Friend give the assurance that he did, I accept that he will administer the Act, if it comes into force, in the spirit of this Amendment. Had he chosen these words in the original Bill, I certainly would not have put forward any opposition to it. I am certain that the country would have understood the motives behind this Measure, and there would not have been the agitation and the searching of heart that the Bill has caused.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: Does my hon. Friend agree that he should not change his mind unless these words are written into the Bill? A verbal assurance is not adequate. No one doubts the Home Secretary's word, but this must be written into the Bill so that it can be read by those who will be affected by this Measure.

Mr. Lyon: If my hon. Friend will be patient, I am coming to that point.
I take the point addressed to the Home Secretary by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). I accept my right hon. Friend's word. I believe that he is an honourable man. I know that he will fulfill the undertaking that he has given the House. But let us suppose that the country were misguided enough to return a Conservative Administration at the next election and, by an awful freak of chance, the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) became the Home Secretary and had to administer the legislation. In the event of that unfortunate occurrence. can we really believe that he would honour an undertaking given by a Labour Home Secretary three years before? We know from the history of this sad case that he is not even prepared to honour an undertaking given by the Conservative Government in 1963.
I do not believe that we can go through with this Bill simply on the basis of a verbal assurance given by the Home Secretary. I am prepared to accept that it will be administered in this way during the period of office of the Labour Government, but it is essential that it should be clearly established on the Statute

Book before there is a change of Administration.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for that spontaneous demonstration of support—but the point that we are concerned with is not a question of any fantasy about the future of my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) or any other hon. Member, but the fact that unless this assurance is written into the Bill in the present situation—not here but in Kenya—it cannot have the desired effect.

Mr. Lyon: I am prepared to accept that if the Home Secretary of a Labour Government gives an assurance such as my right hon. Friend has given it will be carried out, in the spirit in which it was given by the Administration, by the High Commissioner in Nairobi. That is the crucial point.
I accept the point which the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles was seeking to make—although perhaps not explicitly—that it would be a further assurance to Asians in Kenya if it were written into the Bill instead of being a verbal undertaking. I can tell the House that the members of the Asian delegation in this country, who were listening to the earlier debate and heard the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend, were much relieved by it. I am sure, however, that they would be even more relieved if the undertaking were written into the Bill in words similar to those in my Amendment.
Since the Home Secretary has given this undertaking and has therefore sold the pass on this Bill, would he not go a little further and allow these words to be written into the Bill?

Sir J. Foster: I entirely agree with the object of the Amendment, but I ask the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) whether his Amendment is not too widely drawn. It applies to any citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; therefore, it means an amendment of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, and would apply to people from Hong Kong. It covers people with United Kingdom passports, namely, people with passports issued by the United Kingdom or by a representative of the Queen, such as the High Commissioner, in another country.
I am glad to see that the Amendment refers to the country of residence. I do not know whether the Home Secretary's assurance covers the case of an Asian in Kenya who opted for United Kingdom citizenship and was resident in a third country, like the Congo, or Algeria, and who has been persecuted in that country.
The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) covers that case, because on that hypothesis the person concerned would be deprived of the right to work in the third country. But I am not sure whether the Home Secretary's assurance covers Kenyan Asians with a United Kingdom passport, that is, a passport issued by the High Commissioner, or in the United Kingdom, who are persecuted in third countries.
I suggest that the wording of Amendment No. 25 would be more suitable, because it refers to a United Kingdom passport, which presumably means a passport issued by the High Commissioner, or someone like that, and goes on to refer to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, which such a person would be, or a person holding such a passport issued in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. It would therefore cover the two cases of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies whose passport was issued in the United Kingdom and a citizen whose passport was issued by a High Commissioner.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment also covers passports issued under local citizenship law, for instance, in Hong Kong or Gibraltar. I suggest that the words of Amendment No. 25 should be imported into the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, because we are not concerned here with citizens of Hong Kong who may be persecuted in a third country.

Mr. Paget: I agree. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right and I hope that the principle will be accepted so that suitable wording may be found for Report.

Sir J. Foster: Hon. Members have stressed that it will be brought to the notice of Asians in Kenya that the Bill will be administered with compassion. I repeat that the Home Secretary's assur

ance will give comfort to those hundreds of thousands of people who are entitled to ask for a United Kingdom passport, that is, a passport issued by the High Commissioner, in parts of the Commonwealth other than Kenya.
As some doubt has been expressed about my reading of the law, I ought to explain the effect of Section 13 of the British Nationality Act, 1948. Before the passing of that Act, everybody in the Commonwealth was a British subject. Section 13(2) says that after a Commonwealth country has become independent and has passed a citizenship law which does not include all the British subjects without citizenship in the newly independent country's citizenship law, those British subjects without citizenship shall automatically become United Kingdom citizens. An example can be found in the independence of India and Ceylon.
These Amendments will apply not only to persons such as those in Kenya who were given the option of becoming citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, but also to those who automatically became citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of Section 13(2) of the 1948 Act. This is another reason for having the Home Secretary's assurance put into statutory form, because the Amendments would enable the 500,000 to 800,000 Tamils in Ceylon who, out of 2 million Tamils in Ceylon, were left resident in Ceylon, without Singhalese citizenship and as British subjects without citizenship, automatically by virtue of Section 13(2) to become—

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is getting wide of the Amendment. Perhaps he would tell me how he is relating his speech to the Amendment, which is, of course, concerned only with Kenya and with conditions in Kenya.

11.45 p.m.

Sir J. Foster: The Tamils in Ceylon became United Kingdom citizens by the automatic application of Section 13(2). Therefore, if the point were made more narrowly, namely, with regard to United Kingdom passports, a large number of people would still be affected who would be comforted by this evidence of compassion.

Mr. John Page: In giving this dramatic piece of new evidence, is my hon. and learned Friend happy that the Amendment might allow free access to this country to 800,000 more people than we were expecting would come?

Sir J. Foster: That is not the case, because the Singhalese Government will not expel these Tamils. I am more confident now than I would have been under a previous Government. A large number of Indians in South Africa are entitled to United Kingdom passports. When South Africa passed its citizenship law, it did not include quite a number of these Indians, who were therefore automatically entitled to United Kingdom passports. It will comfort those people to know that if they were prevented from earning their living, they could take refuge in the United Kingdom, as they deserve.

Mr. Michael Foot: I wish to return to the question which the Home Secretary put to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer): why should we prefer this Amendment to trusting to my right hon. Friend's general assurances—

Mr. Callaghan: The Question was the other way round. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton was saying—this was why I challenged him—that he had no confidence in my assurances and that they would be worthless unless written into the Bill.

Mr. Foot: If my hon. Friend said that they were worthless, he overstated his case. The question is, why do we prefer the Amendment to the assurances? This is the central argument. The first reason is that if they are in the Bill the facts are known in Kenya, where it is important that they should be known clearly as early as possible. Without casting aspersions on assurances which my right hon. Friend has given or may give, if these words were linked with those suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) and reported in Kenya, they would have a better effect in allaying fears than a general statement of an assurance by my right hon. Friend that cases will be treated compassionately. That is the first ground on which it would be advisable for the

Home Office, in its own interests, to accept the Amendment.
The second relates to the debates on the original 1962 Act, when much of the pressure exerted by the Labour Opposition was to try to extract from the then Home Secretary the detailed instructions which he would give his officers admitting people to this country. Eventually, after long debate—longer than we shall be permitted on this Bill—we got not merely a general assurance from the then Home Secretary of what was to be said to his officers who were dealing with people coming here, but a long statement, before the Bill was accepted, of the kind of instructions which would be given by him to those carrying out his administration.
On this occasion we have merely had—and these are instructions to be given to the people in Nairobi who will carry out the new measures—a general assurance which has not been broken down into specific undertakings, and for this reason I am surprised that the Home Secretary has not already accepted the Amendment, as I hope he will.
A further reason why it is so important—indeed, essential—that these commitments should be written into the Bill is that in the Measure we are dealing with a breach of faith; and when there has been one breach of faith, that is all the more reason for saying that the commitments which one is giving to mitigate that breach should be as specific as possible. If, without insulting my right hon. Friend, the people in Kenya say, "We are not prepared to accept what the Minister says will happen in the application of this Measure", it is difficult to argue with them because they can always reply, "We thought that no undertaking that could be possibly given by a British Government could be firmer than what is written on our passports." That is in much plainer language than anything in the Bill, and even plainer than the Amendment.
If that plain undertaking has been broken, we have the responsibility of trying to repair it—and we have a lot to repair among those thousands of people who are now terrified about what will happen to them. They do not know how their lives will work out as they queue up in Nairobi to make provision, as best they can, for their future. They


do not know where they may have to live and in the last few weeks their whole lives have been uprooted. I refer to people who have relied on us but who are living in circumstances of great uncertainty, perhaps harshness, and certainly fear.
We must do everything in our power to allay these fears, however they may have been caused. The Government have a duty to specify as clearly as possible the commitments they are making. That would be better than the presence of just an assurance. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment and that, if he does not, the Committee will vote so that we may incorporate this provision in the Bill.

Mr. Peter Hordern: It would be intolerable if the Amendment were not accepted. Indeed, the Home Secretary has already given an assurance that if such cases were to arise, he would give them the most favourable consideration possible; and the Committee must respect that assurance. However, we must also consider the position of the Asians in Kenya who, for the last three or four years, have been sustained in the hope of the justice of the assurance that they thought they had been given. It is in this light that the Amendment, or something like it, should be incorporated in the Bill.
In the application of the Clause to the Asians in Kenya, it is deeply offensive, and I mean no disrespect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) who, I am sure, gave no undertaking, specific or in private, at that time. While I accept that, I do not know why the Asians in Kenya could not have been told, after independence had been granted in 1963, that the choice of being able to come to this country was no longer available to them. I am certain they were not told that. Equally, how could those who now say that they were well aware of the obligations and the undertakings then given, have thought that the Kenyan Government would have acted as they subsequently have done? It is therefore not right for any hon. Member to cast blame on the motives that may have existed at that time.
I believe that the responsibility rests on this Committee and on the House to undo the severe damage done after in

dependence was granted to Kenya in 1963; in those two years in which the Asians in Kenya thought that they had the alternative to come to this country if they were to be harshly treated. It is because there was an absolute obligation, though a residual one, that I think that we, as a Committee, cannot accept the assurances, positive and responsible though they were, of the Home Secretary unless some positive gesture is written into the Bill. For that reason, I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

The Solicitor-General: I hope that it may be helpful to the Committee if at this stage I indicate our reaction to these Amendments. As I understand them they are intended to help certain categories of persons who are spelled out in them, but I suggest that the question arises whether that method of dealing with the matter may not of itself involve an undue measure of rigidity. I shall develop that point a little later, but that is my overall anxiety.
The Committee will appreciate that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend, as he has made perfectly clear, that there should be flexibility of treatment, and great importance has naturally been attached to what he has had to say in that connection. But, in the context of the flexibility which my right hon. Friend has promised will apply, it will be possible to give consideration to the categories of persons referred to in the Amendments.
It is the hope and intention, wherever it is possible, to give entry to the categories referred to, but the Committee may think that my right hon. Friend has been perfectly frank and candid in his treatment of the matter. He has said that if, for example, there are mass expulsions on a scale that is not anticipated, and which would be catastrophic, the consequence of such an event might well be to swamp the whole procedure provided for in the Bill. That would amount to a defeat of the plans which the Government have in mind, and one would have to deal with the new situation which on that hypothesis would arise. One cannot forecast in any kind of detail or with particularity in matters of that kind. All one can say is that in that kind of situation one would apply measures that seemed appropriate at the time, and which were compassionate and considerate in their content.
I ask hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have addressed remarks to this Amendment, to give weight to the point I seek to make. If we begin to write into the Bill in the way that has been proposed the concept of flexibility, we may very well as a result have a situation which, by virtue of that attempt having been made, is less flexible than it would otherwise have been. I trust that that will not be regarded simply as a debating point for it is not intended as such. I think it a criticism which it is fair to make of the kind of approach of hon. Members who seek to have the sort of commitment which has been indicated, which is broad in character, written into the Bill.

12 m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My hon. and learned Friend said that if we try to put into the Bill the provisions suggested in the Amendment that might make it less flexible, not more flexible. Why does it in any way limit the discretion of the Home Secretary if we have these provisions in the Bill? He will still have discretion.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Before the Solicitor-General answers that, will he allow me to say that what we have in mind is not writing in flexibility but criteria from particular acts of compassion? The flexibility will remain.

The Solicitor-General: On these points, I can only say that in the opinion that I hold on this matter the danger I have indicated really exists. It is a matter for judgment. I see the force of the proposition that something is gained by indicating the character of the criteria and so forth, but I think there is substance in the point that if we in this fashion indicate the criteria that are to be relevant in applications of this kind the result of so doing will be to cast a reflection and a doubt on others which might be legitimate.
There is an advantage here in leaving the matter in a condition in which flexibility can take practical effect. The merits of the argument I present are underlined by the language used in the Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend made a noble effort to pose appropriate conditions. He used expressions like this in Amendment No. 14:

been denied the right to continue in the employment or type of employment in which he has been wont to work, or been prevented from carrying on the business he has been wont to conduct.
I say this without any kind of disrespect to the composer of these Amendments. They induce and bring forward a whole lot of extremely argumentative and debatable matters. The overall objective of flexibility to which my right hon. Friend has committed himself in this matter is not assisted by a resort to provisions of the kind which are illustrated by the Amendments under discussion. In introducing a Measure of this kind, we are introducing a Measure which in all likelihood is going to be applicable in a whole variety of situations whose different phases and characters cannot be confidently foreseen. There must be flexibility, in the nature of things, for that reason. Again, I put it to the Committee that it would be undesirable, and might be full of peril, to try to spell out too far or too meticulously the kind of guarantee which so many hon. Members on both sides would desire.

Mr. David Steel: The criticism which the hon. and learned Gentleman has levelled at Amendment No. 14 does not apply to Amendment No. 24, where the sole criterion or condition which we seek to enter turns on the question of fact as to whether the immigrant concerned has or has not a right of re-entry to his country of domicile. It does not introduce any other complication.

The Solicitor-General: Even that Amendment is open to the reasonable and serious objection that, by spelling out that single factor, one may be regarded as derogating from others.
What we are offering here is a flexible system which is much more likely to be flexible in effect and in practice if the matter is left as it now is. That is the main answer which I put to the arguments which have been advanced. However, out of respect for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), I wish to say a word about what he said upon the international law affecting the question.
We do not want any splitting of hairs or undue legalisms in our consideration of this matter, perhaps, but, with respect,


I thought that his statement of the law was a little broader in its effect than would be the generally held view of international jurists. I acknowledge that there is some authority for the wide proposition which my hon. and learned Friend put, that a State has a duty to admit its nationals in any circumstances, without qualification. I do not think that that view is universally held, but I acknowledge that it is held by some very distinguished jurists.
The Government do not regard a Measure which is aimed at regulating something which has the character of a sudden inrush of people who are strangers to this country in all but nationality as necessarily irreconcilable with the principle involved in the duty of a State to receive nationals. I hope that the Committee will think it perfectly proper that I should make that point on a matter of law. As a matter of law, this is not a refusal of entry Bill. My right hon. Friend has again and again pointed out that it has its origin in an exceptional situation, and that the remedy proposed is that there should be some ordering of the queue. As a matter of law, it cannot be regarded as contravening the principle in international law which has been referred to, even if it is expressed in the widest terms adopted by my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Paget: I did not make the statement of international law. I simply read the Oppenheim statement. I was not adopting it in its broadest terms, that a state is obligated to receive its citizens in any circumstances, because international law deals with obligations between States and not between a State and individuals. Therefore, strictly in international law that must always be a doubtful question. The proposition I made is that where one nation State expels the citizen of another and the citizen presents himself at the frontiers of his own State, that State is bound by obligation to the expelling State to accept him. I do not think that that proposition is challenged by any lawyer.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for explaining the proposition. I think that my counter-proposition still stands, namely, that if the Bill is to be regarded as not being basically a refusal of entry Bill but a Bill for ordering the process of

entry it does not contravene the principles in international law referred to.
It only remains for me to mention the point raised by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). He referred to the Mauritius independence legislation and drew attention to a Clause in it which is in identical languge to that employed in the Kenya Independence Act. I think that he is absolutely right. There is the same language and, as I understand it, there will be the same effects.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does that mean that the legislation we are now considering does not clear up something done only by my right hon. Friend but something the Government themselves did as recently as last year?

The Solicitor-General: So far as I am aware—and I am open to correction on the point—the right hon. Gentleman has no responsibility for events in Mauritius in this connection.

Mr. Hogg: The Solicitor-General is, of course, right in what he has just said, and, of course, the Bill has its wider repercussions, such as have been repeatedly put before the Committee in very sombre terms from the Front Bench opposite.
12.15 a.m.
I want to say something which I fear will leave me with relatively few friends in the Committee. I believe it honestly and I must say it. I have been deeply disturbed by the course that this debate has taken. I would have thought that there was one lesson that one ought to have learned from the unhappy events of the last two days, and it is a lesson which seems to be the opposite to that which the Committee is beginning to take. The lesson that I draw from the bitterly humiliating events to which we have been subjected is that one must never make promises that one does not intend to perform, and one must never make a promise that one cannot perform when the time for performance is due.
I do not dissent at all from my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) below the Gangway when he says that no expressed undertaking of any kind was given in 1963 in the Kenya Independence Bill. He has made his point there, but there is not a Member


of this Committee who is not somberly aware that we are devaluing in one way or another the obligation which normally is expected to attach to a British passport. The reason why we are doing it, if the Government are right, is that we find that a situation is arising, either when we cannot do what we are expected to do, or we do not expect to be able to. That is the situation we are in tonight.
All that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has been doing is this. The Home Secretary has made a promise tonight. I would like to read the terms of that promise tomorrow. He spoke very quickly at the time and I am not sure what it amounts to. He is a compassionate man and he said yesterday that this Bill will be operated with compassion. I accept that. But if we are to learn any lesson of honour from what we have gone through in the last two days, we must learn, first, that we must not make promises that we may not be able to perform when the time for performance is due, and secondly we must not write them into Acts of Parliament, because that is where we are now and it is because we did not learn the lesson three or four years ago that we are in this position.
All that has been happening in this Committee, and I have been listening for the last hour, is that we have tried to reduce to terms which I do not believe that we could perform if the ultimate value of the cheque were demanded of us, something which the Home Secretary has said. In other words, the Committee is asking the Government to make the same mistake again.

Mr. Michael Foot: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, would he answer this point? Does he not appreciate that what he is now saying, especially if it were generally accepted, diminishes the value of the undertaking that has been given by the Home Secretary, and thereby would greatly enhance the fears in Kenya, if his view of the interpretation of this Bill were to be believed?

Mr. Hogg: I have not said anything about the terms of the undertaking which the Home Secretary has given, except that I would like to see them tomorrow when I can appreciate them better. All that I

am saying is that the sombre fear that I have drawn from this debate is that the Home Secretary is being pressed to make the very mistake which has got us into this mess. We have got into this mess because we have lost control of the situation, and he is being asked to write into the Bill something which will make his successors lose control again.

Sir Dingle Foot: I take issue with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). He has mis-stated the position. This is not a case where we cannot carry out our obligations, it is a case where the Government do not choose to carry out our obligations. I want to return to what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General a moment ago. I fully appreciate the force of his argument, but it is difficult, in the Amendment which has been put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to cover every possible case. There may be some advantages in having a general assurance instead of trying to spell out everything in legislation. But I should like to know how far the assurance goes.
We are dealing with a situation which has been created by legislation in Kenya. I have in my hand the two Statutes with which we are concerned. The first is the Immigration Act, 1967, which provides in Section 4(2):
Subject to this section, the presence in Kenya of any person who is not a citizen of Kenya shall, unless otherwise authorised under this Act, be unlawful, unless that person is in possession of a valid entry permit or a valid pass".
All the people not already citizens of Kenya now have to apply for entry permits. In some cases they have been granted, but only for a very short time—sometimes for three months. In a few months, there may be people in this position: they have been born in Kenya, they have spent all their lives there or emigrated there at a very early age and have spent all their working lives there. Suddenly they are deprived of all status. In fact, their very presence there is declared to be unlawful. That is one class of persons—those refused a valid entry permit by the Kenya authorities.
The other Statute to which I want to refer is the Trade Licensing Act, which


provides for an appointed day. Section 3 provides:
The Minister may, by order, declare the area, or any part of the area, of any city, municipality or township to be a general business area for the purposes of this Act".
Section 5(1) provides:
After the appointed day, no person shall conduct any business, except under and in accordance with the terms of a current licence".
It goes on in subsection (2):
After the appointed day, no person who is not a citizen of Kenya shall conduct a business—

(a) in any place which is not a general business area; or
(b) in any specified goods,

unless his licence specifically authorises him to do so.
He has to apply for a licence. If he does not get a licence, the business in which he may have spent the whole of his working life comes to an end; he is deprived of his livelihood.
Those are the two categories of people with whom we are concerned—those denied valid entry permits, and those whose business is taken away. I ask the Home Secretary or the Solicitor-General: are those the categories of people whom they have in mind in the assurance which they have given?

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Solicitor-General complained that these Amendments would introduce rigidity. I do not think that he was right, for the reason given by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). But the Solicitor-General did not meet the point that what we need is rigidity. It is only because of the infinite flexibility of the Government that we are discussing this extremely bad Clause in a great hurry with considerable lack of dignity. Therefore, anything which introduces rigidity is highly desirable.
I voted against the Bill last night because I thought that it treated the Kenya Asians uniquely badly. The Home Secretary today has said some things which made the situation much better. But thereby he has shown great flexibility. The position has changed since yesterday. It may change again tomorrow. It may go on changing.

Mr. Callaghan: No.

Mr. Gilmour: The right hon. Gentleman says that in perfectly good faith.

Mr. Callaghan: The situation has not changed. I have spelt out today what I said yesterday.

Mr. Gilmour: If the Home Secretary yesterday said some of the things which he has said today, his Bill would have had a much better reception, a lot more of his hon. Friends would be in favour of it, and his prowess as a Parliamentarian would not have been called into question.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said that the Home Secretary was now being asked to make promises which he would not be able to keep. That indicates that my right hon. and learned Friend thinks that the assurances given by the Home Secretary go much less far than the assurances which are being sought in the Amendments. If that is right, we should be told exactly how far short of the Amendments the Home Secretary's assurances go. If it is not right, there is a plain case for accepting one or other of the Amendments.

Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps I may deal with the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot). I indicated yesterday that the conditions under which vouchers would be granted would not be those of the employment voucher system. I made that clear yesterday. I said that new criteria would be established. I did not indicate in detail what those criteria would be because, in my view, as I said yesterday, they should be flexible and left to some extent to the High Commissioner, with his knowledge of local circumstances, to administer.
I went further than that tonight, however, because we have had discussions with the High Commissioner on this matter, and I can say, as I said in my earlier contribution to the debate, that certain of the criteria under which he will operate will include the conditions that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General laid down.
I repeat what I said earlier: the United Kingdom citizens who will get first priority within the 1,500 allocation are those who are genuinely obliged to leave Kenya through refusal of entry permits


or because they hold visitors' passes of short duration, or United Kingdom citizens who have applied for immigrant status and have completed arrangements for leaving Kenya and cannot support themselves.
They will not be the only categories. There will be others who may have very considerable need. My hon. Friends' Amendment relates to those who have been put out of employment. It is possible that a man who has been put out of employment and who has a private income—and some of our Asian citizens have private incomes—will be in less need than others. This is part of the case against the rigidity that an Act of Parliament would ensure. We must leave discretion with the High Commissioner within the general criteria which are being laid down and which I enumerated precisely to the Committee this evening.
I listened, naturally, with great respect to what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said, and I think that he is right about this. If we want the best administration of the arrangements, we should leave the position as flexible as possible in the light of the assurance which I have given and in the knowledge of the criteria that the High Commissioner will apply in doing his work.
I must come back to my earlier point. In my view, this Committee should not legislate on the assumption that the Kenya Government will behave in a manner that would be reprehensible to civilised opinion. Therefore, in discussing this matter, I do not accept that we shall have to have large numbers of people accepted into this country because of that kind of approach by the Kenya Government.
There is a whole group of criteria that will have to be considered by the High Commissioner. He will have to consider a great many of them. If the floodgates are broken down because of an approach by the Kenya Government, the system of control will clearly need to be reconsidered; the House of Commons would have to consider the matter again.
I repeat that the intention of the Bill—which can, of course, be thwarted—is to secure some control over the situation. That is what it is intended to do. As my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor

General said, it is not intended to keep people out for ever. It is intended to secure some control and to put us into a position where we can use the leverage of control.
12.30 a.m.
That is what I am trying to do, and in these circumstances, in the light of what the Solicitor-General said, in the light of the specific criteria which I have now read for the second time to the Committee this evening, in the light of what I have said, I would ask the Committee to accept that the best thing to do would be to permit the High Commissioner to administer the criteria in accordance with the local needs of the situation, in accordance with the developing and. may be, changing needs of the situation, with discretion to vary the priorities in favour of cases with compassionate circumstances as he sees them. For this reason. I would ask the Committee to accept that this is the best approach to the situation.

Mr. Thorpe: I want to make one point, and I want to make it in relation to Amendment No. 24, upon which, I understand, there will be a separate vote. I want to press the Home Secretary very hard on this point.
The right hon. Gentleman has given certain undertakings. I accept the wisdom of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) that we will want to read them in the morning, but I think it is right to summarise them by saying that he indicated that cases would be treated with compassion. The Committee accepts that. I think he went further and said that if a United Kingdom citizen were expelled we would be bound to accept him. I do not want to put words into his mouth but I think that that was the general tenor of his remarks in that connection.
What Amendment No. 24 is seeking to do is not to make the position rigid, is not to exclude other grounds upon which compassionate considerations may enter in, but to start with one very basic assertion, namely, that if a United Kingdom citizen, that is to say, a fellow citizen of this country, is in the position that he cannot go back to his country of domicile, which, in this case, would be Kenya, if he has nowhere else to go,


then of course he can come into this country and of course we will allow him to come in and of course we are going to give that value to the United Kingdom passport. That is what the Home Secretary was in fact saying in his speech, and that is what we are asking him to accept in the Bill.
I accept the point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone that we do not want to make or give undertakings which we cannot honour, or, as was, I believe, the case with the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), are not understood at the time. I think that that was the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham. Had it been otherwise he would have been able to answer the question which I asked him on this point in the Second Reading debate on 22nd November, 1963. The record is there, and I remember the right hon. Gentleman saying he desired notice of the question.
May I just deal with the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised. He quoted Oppenheim, and the Solicitor-General said we are not forbidding entry, we are merely regulating it. Well, if the Government's figure is 1,500 entries—which means, in effect, 6,000—per annum, given a figure of 200,000, this means upwards of a 33-year delay. Some regulating! It is getting pretty near forbidding some people, who will not live to take advantage of the Measure. Therefore I suggest to the Solicitor-General that that may be a jurist's point but it is not one which would commend itself to the man in the street. We know perfectly well that the effect will be to forbid certain United Kingdom citizens the right to come to this country because the delay is so long that death will overtake them before they have opportunity of availing themselves of their rights as United Kingdom citizens.
Therefore what I would say to the Home Secretary is that Amendment No. 24 is in no way restricting his discretion, is in no way derogating from all the compassionate grounds which he can call into aid. It is merely establishing a proposition that if a fellow citizen of this country has nowhere else to go, he

will be able to come here, because he holds a British passport and happens to be a British citizen.
The advantage of doing that is twofold. At least we should salve some modicum of honour in this very shabby business. At least we should say that anyone who is a member of this United Kingdom and has no home to go to can come here. Secondly, at least we should give hope to those who might otherwise be stateless with nowhere to go, having been expelled from one country with a British passport that means nothing because it will not admit them here. At least we should say to those people that they will not be without shelter because, in the final analysis, a British passport means that this country will give them shelter.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that in so many words. We ask him now to write it into the Bill. If he will not, we shall divide the Committee.

Mr. Mackintosh: I want to support the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) in pressing my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on this matter.
My right hon. Friend has just said that we must not act in a manner which assumes that the Kenya Government will legislate in a discriminatory fashion, but if they had not been legislating in that way, we should not be considering this Measure now. To assume that the Kenya Government will not push and challenge these citizens of Britain is a piece of nonsense. That is what they are doing.
If ever I heard a good argument for writing these safeguards into the Bill, it was that made by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). He knows the Home Secretary, and he knows that he is an honest man, yet, sitting opposite him, he says, "You are promising something which you may not be able to fulfil." If the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that, how can the Asians of Kenya be expected to think anything else? If there is any possibility of the promise proving incapable of being kept, the only way to safeguard the position is to write it into the Bill.

Mr. Hogg: In 10 years' time, if it cannot be honoured, how does the hon. Gentleman think that writing it into the Bill will do other than heap more obloquy on this unfortunate country?

Mr. Mackintosh: I do not think that a position would arise where it could not be honoured. The numbers involved in this case are not beyond the capacity of a humane country to absorb. I deny the suggestion. I think that the whole situation is a spurious, trumped-up one. I do not know who has put the wind up the Home Office and destroyed the reputation of the Labour Party for non-racialism by suggesting that we could not absorb 26,000 people this year into a humane and reasonable society. After this performance I will certainly not listen to any more speeches from either Front Bench advocating multi-racialism in other countries. I feel humiliated to have to stand here and make this speech.
We are asked why this safeguard for those deprived of their jobs should be written into the Bill. It is not because of any lack of confidence in the Home Secretary, because we know his character. But we have lost the confidence of certin people overseas. We have to restore their confidence in this House, in the British people and in our word of honour.
Even if we had not destroyed that confidence recently, there is a special problem in that those who live overseas in multi-community countries feel that their rights are tenuous and always look carefully to the letter of the law. Those of us who have taught in Africa know that they are hyperlegalistic. They say, "We cannot understand the British Constitution, because it works on conventions, understandings and unwritten agreements."
They have said to me time and again when I taught in Africa Where does it say this, precisely what the Queen can do in law "? If we do not spell this guarantee out precisely they will not believe us.
The key point is the question of security. A Kenyan employer or official who is wanting to follow a Kenyanisation policy for reasons of his own, and is saying to an Asian "your face is not black, but brown", and is thinking of all sorts of methods of making the person's life

difficult so that a job for a fellow Kenyan will be available can easily edge people out. We know, we who have worked in Africa; we have seen one African tribe do it to another. One does not require to sack people deliberately—one can make their lives impossible in a thousand different ways. One can edge a man out of a headship of a department, a consultancy in a hospital, a job selling merchandise, because one wants that job for somebody of one's own tribe or colour.
It is no good for the victim to be able to say "I have security, within a quota of 1,500; I will be treated with compassion by the High Commissioner on the assurance of the Secretary of State". We want to give people security. These people do not want to come to this country—they have built up businesses, homes and houses, their children are at school there. I have listened to some of my hon. Friends with multi-racial constituencies with great feeling, and I know the tremendous work they have done in amalgamating the races. But, when they consider the extra problem of another 1,000 or 2,000 Kenyans in their constituencies, let them weigh on the other side the panic they have caused in East Africa: people throwing away a lifetime's savings. They cannot get these savings out of the country, and are translating them into jewels and things of that kind, and buying tickets in round-about ways. We are trying to restore security to those who thought they had earned it, people who thought that because they had a British passport they could come here. Even if this Clause did mean a slight reduction in flexibility, which it need not—flexibility is in the hon. Gentleman's hands—the words "if you lose your job you will get into this country" actually written in would mean a fantastic amount to these British citizens in Kenya.
That is the security I feel the hon. Gentleman should restore. We have so many debts of honour to the last, residual remnants of our Empire which are now being closed down. There is a particular sense of humiliation if we cannot do this, with decency and principle particularly for those of us who belong to families that over the years made their livelihood in parts the Empire, who have gone to India and Africa and earned


our living and have come back here. This is one of our small, residual debts. For heaven's sake, write it into the Bill, and let us end this long connection with some saving grace.

Mr. Sandys: I would like, if I may, to take up what I consider to be a very serious point.

Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was called at the beginning of the debate. It is true that on a technical point at the time there was doubt about whether it was in order or not. Is it in order that he should speak a second time, when there are other Members who wish to speak?

The Chairman: There is no rule that an hon. Member can speak only once on a Committee stage.

Mr. Sandys: I wish to raise what I consider to be a very important matter. The Solicitor-General has confirmed the point I put to him earlier, which is that Section 2(ii) of the Mauritius Independence Bill is identical with Section 2(ii) of the Kenya Independence Act. The Solicitor-General has confirmed that the effect of this Clause in the Mauritius Independence Bill is the same as that of the corresponding Section in the Kenya Independence Act, which we have been discussing during two days of debate—namely, it will allow those citizens of Mauritius who do not acquire Mauritius nationality to retain their status of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. It will give them the right of free entry here, and will exempt them from the provisions of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sandys: No.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman never gives way.

Hon. Members: Give way.

The Chairman: Order. There is no obligation on anybody to give way.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman never does.

Mr. Sandys: I am trying to deal with a rather difficult but important legal point.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman has to defend his own position. That is what he is trying to do.

Mr. Sandys: I think I am entitled to do that.

Mr. Heffer: And cause another stampede.

Mr. Sandys: Throughout the debate I have listened to accusations from both sides of the Committee that I have been guilty of dishonouring a pledge. I have explained that no pledge was given. The basis for this accusation is that it is alleged that a pledge was implicit in Section 2(2) of the Kenya Independence Act. I think that the hon. Members will begin to see the relevance of what I am saying.
The Government have told us that for many months past they have been worried about the growing influx of Asians from Kenya, who were taking advantage of their rights under Section 2(2) of the Kenya Independence Act and of their exemption from the controls of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. Although the Government, as they have told us. had been preparing this legislation for a number of months, they themselves inserted this very same Clause, this very same provision, in the Mauritius Independence Bill.
If I am supposed to have given a pledge by virtue of Section 2(2) of the Kenya Independence Act, 1963, were not the Government giving exactly the same pledge in Clause 2(2) of the Mauritius Independence Bill? It may be said that in 1963 we could not foresee the developments in Kenya. But the Government inserted this provision in the full knowledge of what was happening in Kenya, and in the full knowledge that they were planning legislation to take away the right conferred by Section 2(2) of the 1963 Act?
This is a very serious matter. It seems to me most extraordinary that the Government, with the knowledge that they were planning to introduce a Bill to annul the right conferred by Section 2(2) of the 1963 Kenya Act, did not draw the attention of the House to the similar right which they were giving to Mauritius. They did not draw the attention of the House to the fact that they were conferring a right of entry which


they were planning to remove by legislation, which was already being considered in the Home Office. I submit that the Government have absolutely no right to conceal this fact from the House. They told us that they were introducing a Bill to take away a right conferred by the Kenya Independence Act. But they did not mention the fact that this would also have the effect of withdrawing a right which they had put into their own Mauritius Independence Bill only a few months ago.
In order that they too should not be wrongly accused—I say "wrongly" because I maintain that there was no pledge—of having dishonoured a pledge, will they now withdraw the Mauritius Independence Bill, which has not yet received the Royal Assent and remove this Clause from it?

Mr. Paget: Having heard all three Front Bench speakers I am more convinced than ever that if we are to assuage the natural fears that have been implanted in the breasts of certain people in Kenya, first by the right hon. Gentleman and secondly by this legislation, this Amendment ought to be accepted.
On the other hand, I was impressed by what the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) said—that this might have unexpected results in Mauritius and Ceylon, and possibly in Hong Kong. If the Government, by the time we reached Report stage, came to the conclusion that there was something in that argument I would agree that this

Division No. 72.]
AYES
[12.53 a.m.


Allen, Scholefield
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Eadie, Alex


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Archer, Peter
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cant, R. B.
Ellis, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Carmichael, Neil
English, Michael


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ennals, David


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Baxter, William
Chapman, Donald
Farr, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Coe, Denis
Fernyhough, E.


Bennett, James (C'gow, Bridgeton)
Coleman, Donald
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Bidwell, Sydney
Concannon, J. D.
Ford, Ben


Biffen, John
Crawshaw, Richard
Forrester, John


Bishop, E. S.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fowler, Gerry


Blackburn, F.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gardner, Tony


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dalyell, Tam
Ginsburg, David


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Body, Richard
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Gourlay, Harry


Bossom, Sir Clive
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gregory, Arnold


Bradley, Tom
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Braine, Bernard
Dickens, James
Gurden, Harold


Bray, Or. Jeremy
Dobson, Ray
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brooks, Edwin
Doig, Peter
Haseldine, Norman


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dunnett, Jack
Hattersley, Roy


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hazell, Bert

assurance could be confined to Kenya, because it is in Kenya that the people have been panicking; it is in Kenya that people have been labouring under an injustice, and it is Kenya that needs the assurance.

But—oh, dear!—what an assurance they will get when they see that the Home Secretary says, "I am dealing with this on the basis that the Kenya Government will behave in a generous and humane way", when they know so well that that is exactly the opposite of what the Kenya Government are doing; when they know that they want protection from somebody who is not behaving in that way at all. What an assurance they will get when they are told that this is being administered on the basis that they have a good home already, when they know that they have not; when they know that they are in danger, and that their earnings and their jobs and their capacity to support their children are going. They are being told that we are going to shut our eyes to all this. That is what it will seem to them.

I ask my hon. Friends to vote for the Amendment if the Government will not accept it.

Mr. John Silkin: Mr. John Silkin rose in his place and claimed to move,That the Question be now put:—

Question put.That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 186, Noes 40.

Heffer, Eric S.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, c.)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
McNamara, J. Kevin
Sheldon, Robert


Hiley, Joseph
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Manuel, Archie
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Hooley, Frank
Mapp, Charles
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Small, William


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mikardo, Ian
Snow, Julian


Hoy, James
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Huckfield, Leslie
Montgomery, Fergus
Swingier, Stephen


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moonman, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Hunter, Adam
Morris. Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Irvine, Sir Arthur
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Thornton, Ernest


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se amp; Spenb'gh)
Moyle, Roland
Tilney, John


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'namp;St.P'cras,S.)
Murray, Albert
Tinn, James


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Neal, Harold
Urwin, T. W.


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Newens, Stan
Varley, Eric G.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Judd, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ogden, Eric
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Lawson, George
O'Malley, Brlan
Wallace, George


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Oswald, Thomas
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Paget, R. T.
Whitelaw. Rt. Hn. William


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Palmer, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pavitt, Laurence
Wilkins, W. A.


Lomas, Kenneth
Pentland, Norman
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Loughlin, Charles
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Probert, Arthur
Winnick, David


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rees, Merlyn
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


McCann, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


MacColl, James
Roberts, Coronwy (Caernarvon)
Yates, Victor


McGuire, Michael
Rodgers, William (Stockton)



Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William



Mackie, John
Ryan, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mackintosh, John p.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Neil McBride and


Maclennan, Robert

Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Nott, John


Bessell, Peter
Glover, Sir Douglas
Orbach, Maurice


Biggs-Davison, John
Coodhart, Philip
Pardoe, John


Booth, Albert
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire,W.)
Henig, Stanley
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Emery, Peter
Hooson, Emlyn
Sinclair, Sir George


Errington, Sir Eric
Hunt, John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Wainwright, Richard (Coins Valley)


Faulds, Andrew
Jopling, Michael
Walters, Dennis


Fisher, Nigel
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter amp; Chatham)
Whitaker, Ben


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Langford-Holt, Sir John



Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lubbock, Eric



Foster, Sir John
Macdonald, A. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Mr. David Steel and


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marten, Neil
Dr. M. P. Winstanley

Question put accordingly,That the Amendment be made:—

Division No. 73.]
AYES
[1.2 a.m.


Anderson, Donald
Foster, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bessell, Peter
Gardner, Tony
Macdonald, A. H.


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mackintosh, John P.


Black, Sir Cyril
Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Maclennan, Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Booth, Albert
Henig, Stanley
Maddan, Martin


Brooks, Edwin
Hooley, Frank
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hooson, Emlyn
Mendelson, J. J.


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Hordern, Peter
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dickens, James
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Newens, Stan


Ellis, John
Hunt, John
Orbach, Maurice


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se amp; Spenb'gh)
Orme, Stanley


Faulds, Andrew
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Paget, R. T.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jopling, Michael
Pardoe, John


Fisher, Nigel
Judd, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter amp; Chatham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Fortesoue, Tim
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Ryan, John

The Committee divided: Ayes 71, Noes 196.

St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Scott, Nicholas
Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Waiters, Dennis



Sheldon, Robert
Whitaker, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sinclair, Sir George
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Ian Mikardo and


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Winnick, David
Mr. Eric S. Heffer




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Ginsburg, David
Neal, Harold


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Goodhart, Philip
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Archer, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Oakes, Gordon


Armstrong, Ernest
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Ogden, Eric


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n amp; M'd'n)
Gourlay, Harry
O'Malley, Brian


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Grant, Anthony
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Grant-Ferris, R.
Oswald, Thomas


Bagier, Cordon A, T.
Gregory, Arnold
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Baker, W. H. K.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gurden, Harold
Palmer, Arthur


Baxter, William
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pentland, Norman


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Haseldine, Norman
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hattersley, Roy
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hazell, Bert
Price, William (Rugby)


Biffen, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Probert, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pym, Francis


Blackburn, F.
Hiley, Joseph
Rees, Merlyn


Boardman, H.
Hill, J. E. B.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Body, Richard
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Qulntin
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bossom, Sir Clive
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Robinson, Rt.Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Bradley, Tom
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Braine, Bernard
Hoy, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Huckfield, Leslie
Royle, Anthony


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hunter, Adam
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Irvine, Sir Arthur
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'namp;St.P'cras,S.)
Sharpies, Richard


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh amp; Whitby)


Buchan, Norman
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Etwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Short, Mrs. Renee(W'hampton,N.E.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Campbell, Gordon
Kershaw, Anthony
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Cant, R. B.
Kimball, Marcus
Small William


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)



Carmichael, Neil
Kitson, Timothy
Snow, Julian


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stainton, Keith


Chapman, Donald
Lawson, George
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Coe, Denis
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Swingier, Stephen


Coleman, Donald
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Taverne, Dick


Concannon, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lomas, Kenneth
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dalyell, Tam
Longden, Gilbert
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Loughlin, Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lyons, Edward (Bradlord, E.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Urwin, T. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McCann, John
Varley, Eric G.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
MacColl, James
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
McGuire, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dobson, Ray
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wallace, George


Doig, Peter
Mackie, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Dunnett, Jack
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Walking, David (Consett)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwyneth (Exeter)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Weatherill, Bernard


Eadie, Alex
Manuel, Archie
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Eden, Sir John
Mapp, Charles
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Marks, Kenneth
Whitlock, William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maude, Angus
Wilkins, W. A.


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


English, Michael
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ennals, David
Montgomery, Fergus
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Errington, Sir Eric
Moonman, Eric
Worsley, Marcus


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Vardley)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wylie, N. R.


Farr, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Yates, Victor


Fernyhough, E.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles



Ford, Ben
Moyle, Roland
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Forrester, John
Murray, Albert
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Fowler, Gerry
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Neil McBride

Question proposed,That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order Sir Eric. You announced earlier that

you would allow a Division on Amendment No. 24.

The Chairman: I will allow a Division on Amendment No. 24 when we


come to it, but that Amendment is to Clause 2.

Division No. 74.]
AYES
[1.12 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fowler, Gerry
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Ginsburg, David
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Allen, Scholefield
Goodhart, Philip
Oakes, Gordon


Archer, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Ogden, Eric


Armstrong, Ernest
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
O'Malley, Brian


Astor, John
Gourlay, Harry
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n amp; M'd'n)
Grant, Anthony
Oswald, Thomas


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Gregory, Arnold
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Baker, W. H. K.
Gurden, Harold
Palmer, Arthur


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pentland, Norman


Baxter, William
Haseldine, Norman
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hattersley Roy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hazell, Bert
Price, William (Rugby)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Probert, Arthur


Biffen, John
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pym, Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Hiley, Joseph
Rees, Merlyn


Bishop, E. S.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boardman, H.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Body, Richard
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Bossom, Sir Olive
Hoy, James
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Huckfield, Leslie
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Braine, Bernard
Hunter, Adam
Royle, Anthony


Bray, Or. Jeremy
Irvine, Sir Arthur
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se amp; Spenb'gh)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh amp; Whitby)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Buchan, Norman
Kershaw, Anthony
Short, Mrs. René(W'hampton. N.E.)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Kimball, Marcus
Siikin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Small, William


Campbell, Gordon
Kitson, Timothy
Snow, Julian


Cant, R. B
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stainton, Keith


Carlisle, Mark
Lawson, George
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Carmichael, Neil
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Swingler, Stephen


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Taverne, Dick


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Chapman, Donald
Lomaa, Kenneth
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Coe, Denis
Longden, Gilbert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Coleman, Donald
Loughlin, Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Concannon, J. D.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Tinn, James


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dalyell, Tarn
McCann, John
Urwin, T. W.


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
MacColl, James
van Straubenzce, W. R.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
McGuire, Michael
Varley, Eric G.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mackie, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maclennan, Robert
Wallace, George


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Dobson, Ray
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Doig, Peter
Manuel, Archie
Weatherill, Bernard


Dunnett, Jack
Mapp, Charles
Webster, David


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Marks, Kenneth
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Eadie, Alex
Maude, Angus
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Eden, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J
Whitlock, William


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wilkins, W. A.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Montgomery, Fergus
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Moonman, Eric
Williams, Alan(swansea, w.)


English, Michael
More, Jasper
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ennals, David
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wood, Rt. Hn, Richard


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Woodborn, Rt. Hn. A.


Eyre, Reginald
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Worsley, Marcus


Farr, John
Moyle, Roland
Yates, Victor


Fernyhough, E.
Murray, Albert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ford, Ben
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Forrester, John
Neal, Harold
Mr. Neil McBride.

Question put:

The Committee divided: Ayes 208, Noes 76.

NOES


Awdry, Daniel
Heseltine, Michael
Nott, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Higgins, Terence L.
Orbach, Maurice


Bessell, Peter
Hooley, Frank
Orme, Stanley


Bidwell, Sydney
Hooson, Emlyn
Paget, R. T.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hordern, Peter
Pardoe, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Booth, Albert
Hunt, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'namp;St.P'cras,S.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dickens, James
Jopling, Michael
Ryan, John


Ellis, John
Judd, Frank
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Emery, Peter
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter amp; Chatham)
Scott, Nicholas


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Lane, David
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Faulds, Andrew
Lestor, Miss Joan
Sheldon, Robert


Fisher, Nigel
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)



Fbetcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lubbock, Eric
Sinclair, Sir George


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Macdonald, A. H.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fortescue, Tim
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Foster, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gardner, Tony
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walters, Dennis


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maddan, Martin
Whitaker, Ben


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Winnick, David


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marten, Neil



Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mendelson, J. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian
Mr. David Steel and


Henig, Stanley
Newens, Stan
Dr.M. P. Winstanley.

Mr. David Steel: I beg leave to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Chairman: I cannot accept that Motion.

Clause 2. (REFUSAL OF ADMISSION AND CONDITIONAL ADMISSION.)

Mrs. Renée Short: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 26, leave out from ' that ' to end of line 38 and insert:
' he can satisfy a qualified medical authority in the country of his previous domicile appointed by the local British High Commission that no public health hazard might reasonably be expected to arise should he be admitted '.

The Chairman: It will be convenient for the Committee to consider at the same time Amendment No. 19, in page 2, line 38, at end insert—
Except that if a person produces evidence of having passed a medical examination under arrangements approved by the Ministry of Health in the country of origin, the medical inspector shall not normally examine him again.

Mrs. Short: This Amendment takes the Committee to a rather different area of the problem and indicates a practical way by which we can help both those who seek to come to this country and a section of people who have been forgotten during the last part of the debate, namely, the receiving population.
As a supporter of the Bill and as Member for a constituency which has had a great deal of experience of the problem, I have been aghast at some of the irresponsible speeches which have been made, notably by the leader of the Liberal Party and by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), both of whom are in a position to receive entrants into this country in their constituencies but who, I gather, do not wish to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Liberal Party is Member for Devon, North. I understand that, last year, his local authority refused to accept London overspill partly because it was afraid that there would be immigrants among them. He is in no position to lecture the Committee about what we should do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian says that some of his hon. Friends should be willing to take another 1,000 or 2,000 immigrants into their constituencies. I wonder whether he realises what this means. That is the increase in immigrant children that my constituency received from 1966 to 1967. That means an additional class per week entering the constituency, and we must find over 50 teachers a year to meet the increase. It is irresponsible to say that a constituency in the position of mine should have to shoulder that additional burden.
Cmnd. 3552, recently issued by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary,


contains the instructions which he intends to give immigration officers on the exercise of their functions under Section 2 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, as amended by the Bill. If approved, they will supersede part of the instructions issued in August, 1966. They include instructions on medical examinations. The immigration officer is normally required to arrange with the medical inspector at the port of entry for the examination of holders of Ministry of Labour vouchers and other Commonwealth citizens entering the country for the first time. Visitors, students and other people intending to remain for six months or more should also be referred to the medical inspector of the port of entry. If the entrant can produce a certificate that he has passed a medical examination under approved arrangements in his country of origin the port doctor will not normally need to examine him again.
This means that all Commonwealth citizens coming into the country for the first time can be referred to the port doctor for medical examination. With large numbers of entrants, we would have a queue waiting to see the port doctor. Inconvenience and difficulty would arise, and one can imagine the chaos at Heathrow, for example—the large numbers of families, with many young children among them, who would have to wait with no facilities for their reception and no means of achieving the minimum of comfort during their waiting time, which might be very considerable.
If the medical inspector believes that an entrant should not be admitted because he is suffering from a mental disorder or some other disease he can refuse to admit him and send him back home. All the arguments in today's long debate about immigrants who would not be acceptable and would have to be sent back apply equally where people are refused entry on medical grounds. I shall not repeat the arguments and bore the Committee to tears, but where would the immigrant be sent back to?
If the immigration officer or medical inspector decides that an immigrant can be admitted because his disability is not such as to require him to be sent back home, the only recommendation they can

make is for the immigrant to report to a designated medical officer of health.
1.30 a.m.
One assumes that this would mean the medical officer of health in the town to which the immigrant intends to go. There is no means of ensuring that the immigrant does report to that officer, so that one can see that quite a large number of people could be admitted on the understanding that they would report to a doctor, but who do not do so, and would not therefore get the treatment that they need. This means that whole families of immigrants could arrive and be required to return, involving a great deal of expense, inconvenience and unhappiness, unless my Amendment is accepted.
The other factor that concerns me, and will concern other Midlands and Yorkshire Members with experience of the problem, is that the number of those in general practice in our part of the country is low. There is no doubt that the Midlands is under-doctored, and has difficulty in getting doctors to work in the Midlands, in general practice and in hospitals, despite financial incentives which the Minister of Health has given to encourage them to settle in these areas.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I come from the same sort of area as my hon. Friend. We know that there is a shortage of doctors. Is she really suggesting in this Amendment that there is a plenitude of doctors in the countries of origin of these people?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Brewis): Order. I would prefer that the hon. Lady related her remarks a bit more closely to the Amendment.

Mrs. Short: If my hon. Friend would have a little patience I would explain how our Amendment deals with this. Under the present regulations there is a considerable burden thrown upon the hospitals and general practitioner services in the reception areas. We know that tuberculosis is a particular problem with immigrants. Our Amendment suggests that, instead of permitting immigrants to come to this country, to ports of entry and be examined there, we should require all those wishing to enter, who come within the purview of the Bill, to acquire a medical certificate


given by a qualified medical authority in the country of the immigrant's previous domicile—a doctor appointed by the High Commissioner.
We have in mind that, as my right hon. Friend is proposing to send peripatatic lawyers to work as an Appeals Commission, attached to the High Commission, we should also send doctors from this country to carry out medical examinations and issue certificates, which would then be shown at the port of entry, together with an entry permit, ensuring that those people entering the country had a reasonable bill of health. We are not insisting that the immigrant should be absolutely free from all disabilities, but certain disabilities, which my right hon. Friend would indicate. This would make sure that no one arrived here only to be turned back, with all the inconvenience and expense that I have mentioned. It would also ensure that there would not be additional pressure on the hospital and medical services of the country. I hope that the Committee will accept the principle of the Amendment. Possibly its drafting is not as expert as it might be, but I hope that my right hon. Friend understands the spirit behind it and will accept it.

Mr. David Ginsburg: I give general support to the Amendment. It is essentially a probing Amendment, and I would not pretend that the words of it are perfect, but it suggests a certain administrative procedure. I should be interested to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say about it. Every hon. Member accepts that there must be control which should be administered with compassion. Speaking as one with a large immigrant population in his constituency, I have found that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues administer the control which exists with considerable compassion.
However, we are familiar with the problems which arise when immigrants arrive at London Airport, are subjected to health checks—I have tuberculosis particularly in mind—doubts are raised, and they are returned to their country of origin. That is sensible for all concerned, but it causes considerable disappointment to the people involved and their families. If by an alteration of our administrative procedures something

can be done to alleviate this, then it should be done. I ask the Government to accept what we have in mind, which is to ensure as far as possible that the health check, when necessary, is done in the Commonwealth territory concerned and not at London Airport.
This is not anything very revolutionary from the administrative point of view because when emigrants go from this country to the United States, Canada or Australia, it is common form for the medical examination to be carried out in this country so that when the emigrant goes overseas he has, not the absolute surety, but the comparative surety that he will be admitted to the country of his choice.
It may be argued that from a distance there are problems about being sure of the validity of medical evidence and testimonials obtained from overseas, and that this is one of the reasons for having the medical check in this country. Sometimes, too, written medical evidence from overseas is not accepted. This is why we have carefully put words in the Amendment to the effect that the medical authority which examines the immigrant in the country of origin should be appointed by the High Commissioner. Who that medical authority is is to be left open. If there were a heavy demand on resources, and difficulties in having doctors resident in the country concerned available, since the Home Secretary has indicated that lawyers can be sent out, I should have thought that doctors could be sent out I do not put that forward rigidly. One could have doctors on the spot.
This is a practical, simple proposition and, if accepted, it would alleviate quite a lot of the inconvenience and overstrain on the resources of the airports and reception areas.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I hope that in considering these Amendments we can for a moment detach ourselves from the more emotive considerations of the Bill. We must accept that, whatever is done in this Bill, there will be people coming in, and I hope continuing to come in, and it will be necessary for us to exert certain checks and controls. This is not in order to exclude certain people so much as in order to practise medicine in an enlightened and efficient fashion.
It is impossible for the public health authorities to take the necessary steps unless they have the necessary information, much of which must be gathered by them personally and by means of examinations conducted at ports of entry. But there is no doubt that substantial advantage could be obtained if certain examinations were conducted at the point of embarkation.
As the Under-Secretary will know, this matter has been raised, not once, but over and over again in recent years in many other connections. It has been pressed by the British Medical Association that many of the public health regulations applying to immigrants and travellers, including British nationals who come back from abroad, should be modified and new provisions introduced concerning examinations, special investigations, X-rays and the like at the point of embarkation.
The reason for that is not to erect additional obstacles in the way of people's normal progress about the world but to make public health measures operate more effectively and frequently to save people trouble. It is distressing to travel large distances and find on arrival in a strange place that certain conditions exist and, not necessarily to be turned away, but at least sometimes have to be hospitalised or to have courses of treatment in a strange place when one might prefer it to be done at another place. Therefore, there is much merit in the general ideas behind this group of Amendments.
It is important to realise that this kind of consideration cannot be spelt out in detail in a Bill, because the information that is required from time to time varies according to the conditions operating in different parts of the world at different times. This is one of the services operated so efficiently by the World Health Organisation, which runs an early-warning service about epidemics and diseases which are endemic in certain parts of the world. Therefore, the kind of information required at our ports or airports varies from time to time. If we were to spell it out in detail in the Bill, constant changes would be necessary in regulations.
There are, however, certain basic requirements with regard, for example, to infectious diseases. The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) referred to tuber

culosis, and in certain areas this is a condition about which information is wanted. Therefore, in some cases we require X-rays. There is nothing wrong with this. It is in no sense obstructive or punitive. It is a sensible public health precaution. Sometimes, however, it is an advantage if the X-rays can be obtained elsewhere or before a person starts a long and sometimes difficult journey.
There may be difficulties in the wording of Amendment No. 17 and I see disadvantages in the Amendment to which the Under-Secretary will, no doubt, refer. It is restrictive in many ways and, possibly, affects certain other provisions which we want to retain. Amendment No. 19, however, seems merely to allow an additional procedure without in any way restricting what otherwise takes place.
Amendment No. 19 states:
Except that if a person produces evidence of having passed a medical examination under arrangements approved by the Ministry of Health in the country of origin, the medical inspector shall not normally examine him again.
That is sensible.
As the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) said, in many areas the pressure on medical resources is intense. There is an acute shortage of doctors. Therefore, Amendment No. 19 does not make a requirement. It does not say that it must be done in all circumstances but it provides that where it can be done, it shall be permitted under this legislation. That is extremely sensible.
Nevertheless, having said that I regard Amendment No. 19 as a useful addition to the Bill, on which I would like to hear the Under-Secretary's comments, I would appreciate his general comments also on the whole situation, because I am sure that it would be in the interests of the country and of people coming here, from wherever they come, and in the in-interests of the world community as a whole, if we could establish a regular and integrated system of health checks at various points, on which everybody could rely, so that we smooth the arrangements for all concerned. I realise, of course, that we would not establish wholly satisfactory arrangements everywhere by writing this provision into the Bill, but the hon. Gentleman knows that this is the kind of arrangement which the World


Health Organisation is working out and recommending to other countries to make.
1.45 a.m.
I think it is a pity that we have to discuss an important public health measure in the midst of discussing a matter of a quite different character—not of a less important character but still a totally different one, which has, I think, produced the wrong kind of atmosphere for the consideration of the important public health matter.

Mr. Hooley: I am in no way unsympathetic to the proposals which have been made by my hon. Friend; in fact, I am only anxious that control of health shall be absolutely adequate and secure. The only administrative experience I have had of this kind of arrangement was in the university where I was working, and where there was provision in the regulations for such medical examination, in particular for students from overseas, but for British students as well. There was argument for some time whether a certificate from the country of origin of an overseas student could be accepted. It was found in practice that, by relying on evidence from overseas, there were dangers on occasion of students with such a dangerous disease as tuberculosis slipping through, and that the only real and safe medical check was a medical check carried out by the university's medical officer, and that that check should be accepted only as an authentic check on the student's health.
It seems to me that the danger in my hon. Friend's proposals is this. The potential immigrant may in all good faith have his examination in the country from which he is to come here, but then there may be a delay before he arrives here. It would not follow that he would set off for this country the day following his examination. During the delay he could pick up some disease. Also there is the journey itself. We are inclined to assume that people will make the journey by aircraft in a matter of hours, but I take it that some immigrants come by sea and that the ships they come in call at foreign ports on the way here, and so there is a possibility of an immigrant's contracting disease in that way, in the time, which may be a period of weeks, between his satisfying the legal requirement of examination in the overseas

country and his arrival here. In that time he may make a contact injurious to his health. The only watertight safeguard is to insist he should have a medical check when he arrives in this country.
I am wholly sympathetic to the objectives of the Amendment, but I am rather doubtful whether any check other than a check at the time of arrival here will achieve the foolproof system we would like.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: One always listens with great respect to the medical expertise of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), and one has listened to his views this evening with that respect. I wish I could say the same thing about the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), but I am afraid I cannot, but, despite her sponsorship of this Amendment, it is in fact not totally unreasonable. I think the principle behind this Amendment is right, because the principle, as I see it, is that as far as possible the conditions which govern entry into this country should be determined at the earliest possible moment.
One of the most distressing parts of this whole process of immigration control is the disappointment and heartbreak which can result from a person making a long journey and then finding, at the end of his journey, that his hopes are disappointed. Anything which can contribute to the lessening of that likelihood is an improvement.
While one can say that in principle, one wonders whether it is workable in practice. The shortage of doctors in countries of origin has already been pointed out. Equally difficult is the problem of getting a uniform medical standard in those countries. It is true that the Amendment makes provision for the appointment of a qualified medical authority by the local British High Commission, but that does not get over the shortage of doctors, because it may be difficult to find such qualified medical authorities.
Unless we have an accepted standard of practice, it may be that, on arrival at the British port of entry, another form of medical examination will be necessary, and that would result in duplication. As it is, by taking out the


provisions for medical examination, Amendment No. 17 does not allow for that. As a result, if one has to choose between the two Amendments, No. 19 is the more desirable.
Then one asks oneself what would be the concrete effect of Amendment No. 19 if it were added to the Bill. It would not be very much. It would be purely declaratory and would leave the issue to be decided by the health authority on the spot here. Not a great deal would be gained.
The reason why the Amendments are useful is that they are exploratory and will give the Committee an opportunity to hear the views of the Minister on these very important provisions, which command general assent.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I want to buttress the submission of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mrs. Renée Short). I do it on the basis of an argument which is very important and which I am sure she would have advanced herself had there been sufficient time. She concentrated on the medical problems of immigrants.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was in my town three or four weeks ago, and he will remember a conversation with the officers of the local authority in which the medical officer of health played a conspicuous part. I will not disclose the details of what was a confidential meeting, but I can say that the port officers made contributions on the lines which have been indicated tonight.
One administrative difficulty is that, all too frequently, people are late in arriving at the town in which eventually they settle. Often, some weeks elapse, and a great deal of time is wasted by the administrative staff of the medical officer of health's department in trying to locate them, because, in the case of persons who have entered the country illegally, as soon as inquiries of any kind begin in my part of the world, there is a good deal of movement across into Yorkshire. These people move about a great deal. Having located them, there are then language problems. There are real administrative difficulties, as many medical officers of health will confirm.
The object of the Amendment is both humane and administratively desirable. Though I prefer the words of my hon. Friend's Amendment, if the Parliamentary Secretary does not agree, I hope at least that he will adopt the principle behind them.

Dame Joan Vickers: I support the idea behind the Amendment, if not the actual wording of it.
The Under-Secretary may remember that we have been trying in the Council of Europe to draw up a convention forau pairgirls who come to this country. It has been thought quite practical there to have a medical examination of these girls before they come. Norway has already signed an agreement with the local employment agencies of this country that they will not send any girls until they have had a medical examination.
Therefore, if he cannot accept the exact wording of these two Amendments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider seriously that this is a real possibility and will say that something is being done for the people from tropical countries such as we are thinking of, and trying to get done, in Europe itself. In the Common Market countries action has already been taken, so this time the Under-Secretary has a real basis on which to work, and it cannot in any way be said to be colour prejudice.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to say there is an analogy between these cases, and that we may have an Amendment which will be suitable.

Sir D. Renton: I have listened to this discussion with great interest, because when the 1962 Act was going through the House I had to reply to the arguments put forward when various Amendments were moved dealing with medical inspection. May I say in passing how much I envy the Under-Secretary the support he is getting from both sides of the Committee, compared with what we had then?
I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) has made a most valuable contribution in putting forward her Amendment. There is experience, of course, especially the Australian experience where they have so many immigrants moving from this country to


theirs; as I understand it they have a double medical check. One will not get an assisted passage, at any rate to Australia, unless one is medically cleared here, and if one is not medically sound on arrival at the other end one may be either put in quarantine, so to speak, or may not be given leave to land at all.
I remember very well from my own experience of the immigration service how very difficult medical inspection is, in practice and in administration—much more difficult than the many members of the public who insist upon medical checks for immigrants generally realise. But a great deal of experience has been gained by the Government through the administration of the 1962 Act, and the hon. Gentleman's reply will no doubt contain the benefit of that experience. Would he be so good as to explain that part of the Bill which the hon. Lady for Wolverhampton, North-East wishes to leave out? I think it needs an explanation. I foresee a slightly confusing situation arising if we are not careful, because on my reading of the two new subsections, and especially of the words to be left out, the position appears to be that the immigration officer, on the advice of a medical inspector, or, if no inspector is available, of another duly qualified medical practitioner, may make it a condition of granting admission to this country that the immigrant concerned shall report his arrival to a medical officer of health, and submit to examination. So far, so good.
But suppose that the medical officer of health says "You are a person with an incurable disease, you should never have attempted to come here at all". What is to happen then? The person has already been granted admission subject to that condition. The condition has been fulfilled because he has submitted himself to examination, but the examination shows that he is a person who, on health grounds, should not have been admitted. This is why I say that this could be a somewhat confusing situation, and one which should be explained.
2.0 a.m.
In itself, I think that the Amendment has a great deal to commend it, but I would have preferred it as an addition to the Bill, rather than as an alternative

to what is in the Bill, confusing though I find that. In other words, I think that we have to envisage the possibility of people having the opportunity of getting cleared before they leave their own countries, at the time that they apply for an entry certificate, as well as the possibility that a condition should be attached that they get medically inspected in case they have a disease which may be curable or incurable, but otherwise are people who should be admitted. I think that the hon. Lady—and she may see this point—has put us in a difficulty by asking that these words be left out.
I think that the spirit of the Liberal Amendment is sound enough, but I confess that had I been in the position of the hon. Gentleman I would have found the wording of it creating such uncertainty in the mind of an immigration officer that I would have been inclined to advise the Committee not to accept it. However, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt give us his views.

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) for having raised this matter. I think it is an important subject, and she knows, and the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) points out, too, that inevitably the Government have gained some experience of this matter over the past few years. This was in part reflected in the White Paper published in 1965, which this Clause really tries to bring into application.
I have great sympathy with what is in my hon. Friend's mind, and also with what is in the mind of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), but I shall resist both Amendments, because they are unnecessary, and, as I shall seek to prove. would be difficult to apply, and would be unnecessarily restrictive. To do this I must show what the purpose of the Clause is, and how it will be carried out.
I think the Committee will recognise that as the law stands there is no power to arrange for the medical examination of a Commonwealth citizen who qualifies for admission as a returning resident, or as a wife or husband, or as a dependant of someone already in this country. It was because of this that we


decided and announced in the White Paper that power would be taken to require, if need be, a medical examination to be held, and the necessary powers are written into the Bill.
The way in which the new power will be taken is explained in Cmnd. 3552. My hon. Friend read only part of paragraph 5. It is the second half of the paragraph to which I want to draw my hon. Friend's attention and I shall therefore read the whole of it. It says:
The Immigration Officer should normally arrange with the Medical Inspector for the examination of holders of Ministry of Labour vouchers and other Commonwealth citizens who are coming for the first time to settle in the United Kingdom. Visitors, students and others who intend to remain in the country for six months or more should normally also be referred to the Medical Inspector. Any person who produces a medical certificate should be advised to hand it to the Medical Inspector.
That is the medical certificate which the person brings from the country from which he came.
If a person produces evidence of having passed a medical examination under approved arrangements in his country of origin, the Medical Inspector will not normally need to examine him again.
If, instead of holding a certificate from a recognised authority, he appears to be seriously ill, or suffering from mental disorder, or whatever it may be, the immigration officer will have the right to require there to be a medical examination.

Mrs. Renée Short: The paragraph to which my hon. Friend has referred mentions
approved arrangements in the country of origin".
Does that mean that they are approved by the Government of the country of origin, or by my hon. Friend's Department?

Mr. Ennals: It means approved by the British Government—on the advice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and also my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Commonwealth in so far as it applies to Commonwealth countries.
I was going to deal with that point, because most hon. Members would recognise that there is everything to be said for a medical check being held first in the country from which the person comes. This was recognised in the 1965

White Paper. But it was also said in that White Paper that
Medical tests abroad will take time to organise in collaboration with the other Governments concerned, and legislation is needed before new conditions can be attached to entry.
We have attached new conditions to entry, and there are still problems, but we are making progress with them.
There are now 30 independent Commonwealth countries and dependent territories for which the medical examination of prospective immigrants has already been arranged and approved by my right hon. Friends. Progress is being made and negotiations are being carried on with some other parts of the Commonwealth and independent territories in order eventually, we hope, that medical checks can be arranged everywhere before immigrants arrive here. It has already been pointed out by one hon. Member that on occasions this can be difficult in some territories, where there may be a shortage of doctors and where arrangements are not easy to make. As soon as we can we shall proceed with medical arrangements in other countries.
I submit that, under the circumstances that I have described, to make the possession of a medical certificate, a statutory requirement would be very restrictive. I would also point out—and this deals in part with the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—that in the 1965 White Paper there is a sentence to which I should draw his attention. It says:
There will however be no question of refusing entry on medical grounds to entitled dependants and powers will not be taken to do this.
That means that a dependant could arrive with a disease which carried with it some dangers. It is for this reason that we make it a condition of entry that if a medical inspection shows this to be the case the person concerned must report to an appointed medical officer. If that person does not report to an appointed medical officer he or she is committing an offence, because that is a failure to comply with a condition of of entry. But to say that the child—if child it be—or wife—if wife it be—because of sickness that he or she has, must return to the country of origin in spite of the fact that the father and other members of the family are


here would be a restriction which this Government would not wish to introduce, and which I think the Committee would not wish to approve. These cases are likely to be minority cases, but they could be the sort of circumstances in which family reunification is essential.
There are defects in the Amendments. I do not want to go into them in detail, but I would point out to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) that his Amendment would have no greater binding force than the sentence which is already contained in the draft instructions to immigration officers which have been laid before Parliament and which will be approved by Parliament.
I hope that, with that explanation and the indication that we are making progress in the general direction in which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee wish us to progress, the Amendment will not be pressed to a Division.

Sir D. Renton: Paragraph 6 of the instructions says that the power to refuse admission on medical grounds does not apply to wives, returning residents or children under 16. However, it may be a condition of their landing that they submit to examination. Why has not that been included in the instructions?

Mr. Ennals: If an immigration officer does not have a certificate presented to him by a would-be immigrant, he is entitled to ask for there to be a medical examination, and it is quite right that he should have this power.

Mrs. Renée Short: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dame Joan Vickers: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 3, line 2, after wife ', insert or widow '.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Brewis): With this we are to take the following two Amendments:

Amendment No. 22, in page 3, line 2, after second is ', insert or was '.

Amendment No. 23, in line 5, leave out ' with her '.

Dame Joan Vickers: On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said:
It has been widely reported and assumed that because 1,500 vouchers will be issued,

1,500 people a year will be coming here. That is not true. There will be 1,500 vouchers for heads of households. Every head of a household can bring his entitled dependants—wife, children under the age of 16. aged parents."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February. 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1255.]
The purpose of the Amendment is to know whether a widow is to be considered to be the head of a household, which does not appear from the Bill to be the case. The hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) and I have put forward these Amendments so as to allow the widow of a resident in the United Kingdom, or other Commonwealth citizen, to enter on her own right. Nowadays, women are not just appendages of and do not necessarily have to travel with their husbands.
I hope that this simple proposal will receive sympathetic consideration from the Government. Although I am thinking particularly of Asians, there are plenty of other widows living in other countries in the Commonwealth who may wish to return to their relations for company, or for care, or perhaps for financial help. Article 2 of the Fourth Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights makes a specific reference to the right of citizens to enter States of which they are nationals. Although the United Kingdom has not ratified the Convention, I hope that the Under-Secretary will agree that these widows ought to be able to come here in their own right.

2.15 a.m.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: It would be absolutely outrageous if the Committee were to refuse to accept the Amendment. It raises the whole issue of the status of women, although I must be bound by the rules of order. I strongly support the case so well made out by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers). It must be unacceptable that widows should be deprived of the privileges of this part of the Bill. It is not our fault if our husbands die, and a woman should not be deprived, because her husband is dead, of rights which she would have if he were still alive. This is unacceptable in terms of human rights and women's status. So many things in this Bill, which is sodden with racialism, are sodden with anti-feminism. Discrimination is indivisible: discrimination in one direction leads to discrimination in another.
I thought that the Government paid more attention to the Declaration of Human Rights. Article 2 says:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion…
The Clause discriminates on grounds of sex because it says that a woman must be married and accompanied by her husband when she seeks to enter the United Kingdom.
There might be a hundred reasons why a woman does not travel with her husband. which is why Amendment No. 23 would leave out the words "with her." Why should a woman have to arrive on the same aeroplane or ship as her husband? Many married couples prefer to travel separately for reasons of safety. A woman might be expecting a baby and decide to wait until it is born, while her husband has to arrive in the new country by a certain date to take up a job.
A couple might not even live together because they do not like each other, and certainly would not travel together. They might be separated. It is intolerable that a woman's right to arrive here should depend on her physical "togetherness" with her husband at the time. I cannot think what is in my right hon. Friends' minds. I do not know how they think ordinary people live. Nothing is more common than that a man and wife should occasionally want to travel separately, and a condition that people should travel together is completely unacceptable. This is treating women like mere appendages.
Many women, like doctors and teachers, who wish to come here should not be obliged to accompany their husbands. This is a completely offensive provision which, in this year of human rights, should not be allowed to remain in the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend has sufficient common sense, compassion and lack of prejudice to accept this modest Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: I support the Amendment. Had the Bill not been so rushed, I am sure that the Government would not have proposed a provision which discriminated against women in this way. Consider the plight of an Asian woman living in Kenya whose husband has died and whose only relatives, perhaps distant relatives like cousins, are in this country,

having been able to get into the quota to come here. Having lost her husband, she must stay in Kenya without friends, perhaps without a job and unable to obtain work. Under the Bill, she will not be able to proceed to this country on her United Kingdom passport because, in drawing up the Bill in a hurry, the Government have made a mistake. This would be a poor way to treat women, particularly widows, in Human Rights Year and is no way to tackle the problem of human relations between male and female.
I am surprised that, in their haste to get the Bill drafted, the Government have omitted to realise that not only wives but widows will be included in this categorisation. Why should a woman have to arrive with her husband? That is one of the most idiotic statements in this idiotic Measure. People often deliberately travel separately. Lord Shawcross once said that he and his wife never travel together in the same aeroplane. Many families who are not faced with the problems created by the Bill do not proceed in the same aeroplane for safety reasons. If anything should happen to one parent, the other can look after the children.
Instead of taking this common sense attitude, the Government are saying that if a wife arrives at London Airport, Southampton or elsewhere and is not in the company of her husband, she will be barred and sent back to Kenya. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give the Committee some reasonable explanation, because what we are saying is so sensible and the alternative so idiotic that there really must be some such explanation that will remove these crazy fears from our minds. As the Bill is now drawn, the whole thing is so incomprehensible and so foolish that, even with the present Government, I cannot believe that it is true.

Mr. Ennals: What has been said just shows how necessary it is to have a debate like this in order to correct both the impression of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) about the alleged confusion of the Bill and the impression of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) that the Bill is somehow sexually discriminating. To deal with that point. I must first explain what the original Act did, its consequences, why we have introduced this


amending Bill, and the effect of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers).
Section 2(2,b) of the 1962 Act precludes an immigration officer from imposing conditions of admission on a Commonwealth citizen who qualifies for admission as wife or husband, or is the child under 16 of a parent who is in this country. The intention behind the provision was to assure the immigrant wives and children of an unfettered right to join the head of the family here. But another consequence of the provision, which was presumably unintended or thought unimportant in 1962, was that if the head of the family is admitted for a limited period on conditions—perhaps as a student for six months or so—there is no power to impose the same limit on the stay of his wife and children whether they enter the country with him or join him later.
Therefore, as the original Measure stood, the man could arrive, be admitted as a student for a period of, say, six months conditionally, and then send for his wife and children to join him. His wife and children could then come in without conditions. At the end of the six months, the man could be required to return to his country of origin, but his wife, because she was the wife, and because of that alone, gained a right which the man did not have. That was sexually discriminatory, if anything was. Since the hon. Lady is fair, if anything—and she is fair—she would not want us to retain provisions which were discriminatory in favour of women any more than in favour of men.
Let us now look at what the Amendments seek to do, with the misguided support of the hon. Gentleman. The effect of Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 would be that the widow of a Commonwealth citizen who had been resident here could not be refused admission by the immigration officer. Suppose, therefore, that the Commonwealth citizen is dead—maybe his ashes are buried here, but he is not here himself. He has died—

Mrs. Lena Jeger: It is not her fault.

Mr. Ennals: It might have been her fault—one cannot tell whether it was

her fault or not—that is not the question. He has died. There seems to be no good reason why, because of that fact alone, because she is a widow of a man who may once have lived here, she should have the right of entry. That would not apply if the situation were the other way round: a man would not have the right of entry just because his wife, before she died, had been for some reason or other resident in this country. If the woman was not widowed she would be able to join her husband so, again, the position is the same as it affects men and women.
There are many circumstances in which a woman whose husband was not a Commonwealth citizen living here could be admitted; for example, whether she was a widow or a mother she could come to join parents, she could come here to join children who were here, or she could come here in certain compassionate circumstances. It does not seem right to us to give such a woman a statutory right of entry just because, in a sense, the ashes of her husband are in this country. So far as is known, the existing provisions have not caused any hardship. Existing instructions to immigration officers provide for the admission of a widow in certain compassionate circumstances, provided that the relative in this country has adequate accommodation. There are many occasions when this discretion is used.
2.30 a.m.
Reference has been made to Amendment No. 23, which provides that a woman shall be admitted notwithstanding that her husband is not resident in this country and does not seek to enter this country with her. There is no obligation upon the husband and wife to travel together. One understands that for all sorts of reasons, for safety or happiness, they may prefer to travel separately. But there is no provision now for a woman who has no right of entry to be admitted just because her husband hopes to come to this country, any more than there is a right for a man to come here with no right of entry and to be admitted because his wife may be a voucher holder coming to this country.
A woman who herself is the holder of an employment voucher would be admitted on precisely the same terms as a man. There is no question of sex discrimination, but one must realise that


this would apply to a man as well as to a woman. Under this Amendment if a woman who arrived at a port satisfied the immigration officer that her husband was soon to arrive, she could be admitted. It may be that even though he held an entry certificate he might have been responsible for a fraud or some other offence which would exclude him from admission. Because she travelled on a plane before him, even though she had no right of entry, she would gain admission and her husband would not. The husband could claim to come in as a dependant husband.
These Amendments are quite unnecessary. There is no element of sexual discrimination at all. Were we to start making these changes, we might put women at an advantage over men. I am afraid that in this assembly that is unlikely to be accepted.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Surely the logic of what my hon. Friend has said must mean that he accepts the Amendment. He has said it is not essential for a woman to arrive with her husband, but in page 3, line 5 the Bill makes it obligatory for the husband and wife to arrive together. It says "with her".

Mr. Ennals: He can either arrive with her or after, but not before.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: What my hon. Friend has said is not in the Bill. The Bill says that the husband must arrive with the wife. My hon. Friend says that he can arrive after or before her. Will he not accept an Amendment that she may arrive with, after, before, or behind?

Mr. Ennals: There is no need for an Amendment which permits her to arrive afterwards. The immigration officer cannot refuse to admit a wife whose husband already has arrived here. Neither will he refuse a wife who arrives with her husband. These Amendments would add confusion to what is an eminently sensible Clause.

Dame Joan Vickers: The words in the new subsection (1) are
who enters or seeks to enter the United Kingdom".
There has been no explanation of that phrase. What does it mean? Does he write from the country where he is and

seek to enter? It must mean something, or it is not necessary at all. I cannot see what "seeks to enter" means.
The hon. Gentleman did not answer the question about the widow at all satisfactorily. Is she now to be allowed to come in as head of a household? If she is to have a voucher in her own right as head of a household, I do not mind so much, but the hon. Gentleman's explanation still has not made clear whether she is to be allowed in.

Mr. Ennals: I am trying to understand what the words "seeks to enter" mean. It is a reference to someone who arrives and requests the right to enter. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who is sitting beside me on the Front Bench, knows that the reference is to someone arriving with the intention of entering who asks for the opportunity to enter. That is a fairly clear interpretation.
The hon. Lady has asked about a widow who was a head of a household. If a woman receives an employment voucher under the system as now operated, she will come in as the head of a household, just as a man would come in as head of a household. Vouchers are issued to women as they are to men, if they apply for them, according to their qualifications. Under the new type of voucher to which we have been referring in this connection, a woman who is the head of a household is as much entitled as a man to apply if her circumstances are such that the High Commissioner considers that she should be one of those who would be granted a voucher.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I find this quite unacceptable, and I deeply resent my hon. Friend's facetious attitude to the position of widows. In his earlier remarks, he seemed to be joking about ashes and widows. I find this very offensive.
A woman might be widowed a few days before she expected to come to this country. She may not be the head of the household at the time when the application is made. Men die suddenly sometimes. Because her husband has died, she would be deprived of the right to come here. This is quite unacceptable. The Committee would not want that to happen. I shall not press the matter to a Division, but I felt that the


attitude of the Front Bench was quite unacceptable and really most offensive.

Mr. Ennals: Quite obviously, I have offended my hon. Friend. I assure her that it was absolutely unintentional. I did not for a moment intend to be facetious on this matter.
I have already made the case against including this as a statutory right. Where, however, there are compassionate considerations, there is a well known procedure. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have paid tribute to immigration officers and to what is done in cases which are referred to Ministers. There are countless cases referred to Ministers which fall outside the heading of right of entry. I assure my hon. Friend that Ministers show every sort of sympathy for compassionate considerations. I am not thinking so much of myself as of my right hon. Friend and

Division No. 75.]
AYES
[2.40 a.m.


Anderson, Donald
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Oakes, Gordon


Awdry, Daniel
Henig, Stanley
Orbach, Maurice


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Heseltine, Michael
Orme, Stanley


Bessell, Peter
Hooley, Frank
Paget, R. T.


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Pardoe, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Hunt, John
Perry, George H (Nottingham, S.)


Brooks, Edwin
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ryan, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Jopling, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Davidson. James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Judd, Frank
Sinclair, Sir George


Dickens, James
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter amp; Chatham)



Ellis John
Lane, David
Taylor, Edward M.(G' gow,Catheart)


Emery, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


English, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Faulds, Andrew
Lubbock, Eric
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Whitaker, Ben


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Macdonald, A. H.
Winnick, David


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Winstamley, Dr. M. P.


Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)



Glover, Sir Douglas
Marten, Neil
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodhart, Philip
Mendelson, J. J.
Mr David Steel and


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mikardo, lan
Mr Emlvn Hooson




NOES


Allen, Schoiefield
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ford, Ben


Archer, Peter
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Forrester, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Chapman, Donald
Fowler, Gerry


Bacon, Rt. Hn, Alice
Coe, Denis
Ginsburg, David


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Coleman, Donald
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Concannon, J. D.
Gourlay, Harry


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dalyell, Tam
Grant-Ferris, R


Bishop, E. S.
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Gregory, Arnold


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davits, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Harper, Joseph


Body, Richard
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Haseldine, Norman


Bradley, Tom
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hattersley, Roy


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dobson, Ray
Hazel!, Bert


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Doig, Peter
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dunnett, Jack
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Brown, Sob (N'c't!e-upon-Tyne,W.)
Eadie, Alex
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Buchan, Norman
Edwards. William (Merioneth)
Hoy, James


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Ennals, David
Huckfield, Leslie


Cant, R B.
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm Yardley)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Carlisle, Mark
Farr, John
Hunter, Adam


Carmichacl, Neil
Fernyhough, E.
Irvine, Sir Arthur

colleagues who have been in office before me. They would never think of rejecting a person who had a powerful compassionate claim in circumstances such as those to which my hon. Friend has referred. I hope that she will withhold her resentment.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: I undertook to call a Division on Amendment No. 24 if desired.

Amendment proposed:In page 3, line 5, at end, insert:

(c) any person who being a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies has no right of re-entry to his country of domicile.—[Mr. David Steel.]

Question put,That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided:Ayes 60, Noes 138.

Jackson, Colin (B'h'se amp; Spenb'gh)
Mitchell, R, C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton.N.E.)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jones, Rt. Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,.S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Small, William


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Snow, Julian


Lawson, George
Moyle, Roland
Stainton, Keith


Leadbitter, Ted
Murray, Albert
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Neal, Harold
Swingler, Stephen


Loughlin, Charles
Ogden, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
O'Malley, Brian
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Oswald, Thomas
Thornton, Ernest


McBride, Neil
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Tinn, James


McCann, John
Palmer, Arthur
Urwin, T. W.


MacColl, James
Pentland, Norman
Varley, Eric G.


McGuire, Michael
Price, William (Rugby)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Probert, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mackie, John
Roes, Merlyn
Wallace, George


Maclennan, Robert
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Whitlock, William


MacPherson, Malcolm
Robinson, Rt.Hn. Kenneth(St. P'c' as)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Manuel, Archie
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Yates, Victor


Mapp, Charles
Russell, Sir Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marks, Kenneth
Sharpies, Richard
Mr Ernest G. Perry and


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Mr Ernest Armstrong.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 3, line 13, leave out ' both ' and insert ' one '.

The Chairman: With this we can also discuss the consequential Amendments: Amendment No. 27, in line 13, leave out ' are ' and insert ' is '.

Amendment No. 28, in line 14. leave out ' both ' and insert ' one '.

Amendment No. 29, in line 14, leave out ' are ' and insert ' is '.

Amendment No. 30, leave out lines 16 to 18.

Mr. Steel: We come to quite a separate subject with this Amendment. One of the provisions of the Bill is to change the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act, and the provisions in that which enable a dependant to enter as of right if he had one parent resident in this country. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary indicated that the Government had decided to change this aspect of the Act because 'there was evidence that this Section was being misused and was a loophole to bring people into all-male households who undertook employment. The purpose of the Amendment is to probe the Government on this new restriction.
It is possible to argue that this provision is a contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights which maintains the sanctity of family life and which therefore presumably entitles dependants to join one or other parent of their choosing. That is a point which

the Government should have considered. Secondly, I should like to know what happens to the dependants of divorced parents. How will they be treated if this new provision is passed'? What applies to divorced parents applies when there is only one remaining parent. Thirdly, what happens in the case of one parent who is ill and, therefore, is not able to fulfil the condition contained in subsection (2A,c) which provides that dependants are exempt if both parents seek to enter the United Kingdom with a dependant? The Amendment, plus the consequential Amendments, changes it to one parent.
These are practical problems, and we should like to explore the Government's mind on them.

Mr. Robert Howarth: It might be wise to refer the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) to the debate on 15th November, when the point was made by a number of Members, including myself, that many of the problems arising in constituencies which have large numbers of immigrants are caused by the arrival of young people alleged to be about 14 years of age who usually join their father and who present a terrible problem to the schools, certainly in constituencies like mine. It is expected that they will be taught English—they are usually non-English-speaking people from India or Pakistan—and receive an education, all within the space of 12 months, and then will go on to the labour market. Here we have the beginning of a permanently depressed group


of coloured youngsters who will be educated only to the level of being able to do the most menial tasks.
It is obvious from what the hon. Gentleman has said that he has no conception of the problems which exist in some constituencies. I assure him that, if we allowed this situation to continue, we should be laying the basis for the problems which exist in other countries in which the menial tasks are done by coloured people, which is accepted by members of the indigenous population.

Mr. David Steel: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is outlining the problems of boys of 14 years of age coming to our schools. But what has it to do with whether they have one parent or both parents here?

Mr. Howarth: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I understood that the intention in allowing dependants to come to join those already settled here was to re-establish family life. Clearly, the problem is that that is, we believe, being abused in the sense that fathers are not bringing over the mother and the rest of the family but are deliberately bringing perhaps the eldest boy, who within a year will be a wage earner.
We have the problem of trying to educate those youngsters from scratch in a short time. This is one of the greatest worries of many teachers in my constituency. Here is one way in which the Government have met the points that were made in the debate on 15th November.

Sir D. Glover: I rise to oppose the Amendments and, at last, to get away from the unholy alliance with the Liberal Party on the Bill. The basic purpose of the Bill, when it does not apply to the Kenyan problem, is that the Home Secretary is trying to remove some of the evils or unsatisfactory features which have grown up since 1962 in the working of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
The Home Secretary is doing that with five years' experience of the working of the Act. This is not a theoretical alteration. It is an alteration which, I think, the Home Secretary has decided is necessary for the health of the community.
The basis of our immigration policy has been that the head of the household comes here and gets established and is allowed to bring his family. The idea of bringing his family was to establish a normal family household. We cannot prove it, but there is a good deal of worry in many people's minds about whether they are all genuine households which have been created under the 1962 Act.
In putting down the Amendments, hon. Members in the Liberal Party said that they wanted to inquire into the Government's mind, but I think that the Government would be ill advised to give way on this matter because what they have done in the Bill in this respect is an improvement on what went on before.

Mr. Ennals: I hope that after I have given an explanation, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) will agree to withdraw the Amendment. What hon. Members, on both sides, recognised in the debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) has said, that the problem is a very real one.
It is, I think, recognised in many constituencies that there has been a growing tendency for youngsters aged, perhaps, 14 or 15, or older in some cases but satisfying the immigration officers that they are only 15, to come into this country for employment. Many of them go straight on to the labour market, often without being able to speak our language. They come in with a right because their father is here and because the 1962 Act gave them entitlement to join either parent here.
Not only do they come on to the labour market at that stage without going to school, without necessarily any obligation to learn English, but in most cases they join all-male households. The mother is left behind and they go often into a house which may be overcrowded, in which there may be up to 10 people, perhaps two or three fathers and two or three sons, without any female presence. The circumstances often may be that the father is on night shift and the boy on a different shift, so that the question of parental responsibility is difficult, but certainly integration into our society is extremely difficult in the circumstances.
3.0 a.m.
While it was originally intended by the 1962 Act, I have no doubt, that the granting of this right to a dependant to join either parent should bring families together, it has sometimes served not to bring families together but to divide them in a way which can be disadvantageous not only to society here but especially to the boys themselves. There are numbers to be mentioned, and I will come to them in a moment, but the motive of the Government in bringing forward this part of the Clause is to help to resolve social problems. It was not simply that we said, "How can we find a way of reducing the numbers?" It will reduce the numbers, but that is not the purpose of it. I ought to mention that the social problems were drawn sharply to the attention of my right hon. Friend by International Social Service, a social work body which made a study at London Airport and subsequently in different parts of the country and came up with a report expressing great concern about these social problems which concern Parliament itself.
During 1967 the number of children under 16 arriving from Commonwealth countries, other than Canada, Australia and New Zealand, was 34,677. Of those, 12,664 were citizens of Pakistan. A special check was made during December, 1967, when 1,553 child dependants arrived from Pakistan, and showed that about one-third of them were boys of 14 and under 16 and that virtually all the boys were coming to join the father alone. The increase in the number of dependants and dependant children recorded in 1967 is very substantially due to this dramatic increase in boys in this age range, mainly coming from Pakistan, coming usually into an all-male household. We felt, therefore, that it was essential that we should put in this provision. If it had been thought it would divide a family, then we would not have come forward with this proposal, because we believe very strongly that family unity is an important thing for immigrants who have settled in this country.
It must be made clear that the Act, as amended, will permit the admission to one parent if that is the only remaining parent if the other parent has died. It is important that this should

be provided. Also, in the Draft Instructions to Immigration Officers, which have been laid before Parliament, provision is made for admission of legitimate children whose parents' marriage is dissolved, and of illegitimate children for whom one parent has had sole responsibility, and this has particular application to the West Indian situation. On the admission of children aged 16 to 17, on terms similar to those for children under 16—I must make this important point—there is discretionary admission for children to join a single parent or some other close relative where this is warranted by special circumstances.

Mr. Michael English: Would my hon. Friend explain how those instructions to immigration officers which he mentioned square with the Bill as worded? I am speaking in relation to divorced persons.

Mr. Ennals: I do not seem to have the Instructions to Immigration Officers at hand. Which clause was the hon. Gentleman referring to—about discretion?

Mr. English: The one the Under-Secretary was speaking to.

Mr. Ennals: I was asking which section my hon. Friend was referring to in the Instructions to Immigration Officers? In the first, dealing with children, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 deal with the problem to which I have referred. Paragraph 2 refers to a legitimate child whose parents' marriage has been dissolved and one parent here has legal custody, and to an illegitimate child where one parent here is responsible for his upbringing.
The Draft Instructions to Immigration Officers give the discretionary right to admit children where there are special circumstances. Where it is clear either to the entry certificate officer or the immigration officer that there are special compassionate circumstances outside the heads of policy contained in the Bill or, as it will be, the Act, those circumstances can be taken into consideration.
With that explanation, I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: The hon. Gentleman has made out the case against the Amendments as far as they concern the boys from


Asia who come to join all-male households. But another problem which he referred to in passing is the impact of the Bill and the Draft Instructions to Immigration Officers about dependants coming here from the West Indies.
As drafted, the Bill insists that both parents should be here, except in certain circumstances which the Under-Secretary of State has outlined. The Amendment suggests either parent. However, I would have preferred to see a provision that the mother alone would be sufficient. My hon. Friends the Members for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) and St. Ives (Mr. Nott) and I put down an Amendment on those lines which, unfortunately, was not selected. This would have been the middle way which would have met the Government's point and met the different patterns of life—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is discussing an Amendment which has not been selected, it is not covered by these Amendments.

Mr. Scott: It is to these Amendments that I am speaking. If the Government could see their way clear at the next stage of the Bill to adopt a middle way—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman cannot plead for a middle way on these Amendments.

Mr. Scott: I regret that these Amendments do not take into account the different pattern of life of the West Indian immigrant.
In my constituency, there are a number of female immigrants from the West Indies who, having come here themselves, then send for their dependants. At the moment, the dependants are able to come to join their mothers. The Bill will put a stop to it.
The Draft Instructions to Immigration Officers might just cover the position where, in paragraph 2 (b), they refer to a parent here who has had sole responsibility for a child's upbringing. In the case of West Indians, it depends how that is interpreted. Probably the mother came here from the West Indies, leaving behind a child in the care of a grandparent. She could be said to have ceased to have sole

responsibility for that child's upbringing. But she comes to this country and, perhaps years later, sends for her child.
I can see the point about discretion residing with the immigration officers and, ultimately with the Minister, but I would have preferred to see this made clear in the Bill. This exception should have been covered. I do not think that it would have upset the Government's point, but it would have avoided the possibility of a less than humane Statute affecting a number of West Indian immigrants.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I understand that this is a probing Amendment. Perhaps I might be allowed to probe a little further. I wish to ask also about the point the hon. Gentleman has just raised. I should like to ask my hon. Friend why, if the reason for this Amendment is to prevent a male child who is about to become a wage earner from entering an all-male household—and I quite follow the substance of the point he has made—the Bill is so framed as to prevent a child from joining his mother alone.
The second question I wish to raise is why, if it is concerned with all-male households, with boys coming to this country to join their fathers, the Bill is so framed as to embrace girls as well? Why cannot the Clause be so framed as to ensure that it catches those it is intended to catch, and not a variety of others?

Miss Joan Lestor (Eton and Slough): I have every sympathy with the intention of the Government to try to do something about this problem of boys joining male households. At this time of the morning I may be seeing a difficulty which does not exist, but I think the difficulty is that if we say that a boy cannot join his father if he has a mother living in his country of origin, unless his mother comes as well, this will mean that unless the mother comes before the child is aged 16 he will not be able to come to this country except under the system of work vouchers which applies to everyone else. This would mean that his mother could come, and the boy of 16 or 17 could be left at home.
Rather than have this situation it would be better, it seems to me, to consider the possibility of giving priority in


work vouchers to those boys so affected by any Amendment. In this way one would avoid the distinction of the dependants over the age of 16, 17 or 18 who present a problem to many of us in constituencies which have immigrant populations. It would also have the effect of seeing that we have families coming in, rather than scattered dependants of a very large number of families.

Mr. Ennals: Perhaps I could deal with one or two of the points raised. If the mother has come over here and the boy is under the age of 18 then, according to the Instructions to Immigration Officers, he will be able to join his mother and father here. If he is over the age of 18 it would still be possible for him to come if he was dependent and was not so working that he was looking after himself or if, for instance, he was the only son and therefore, even though he may be 19, 20 or even 21, if he was in fact dependent on them and was not a wage-earner and had been used to being dependent on them—could still be brought over.
There are plenty of provisions which would help to ensure family reunification, provided the mother either comes with him or is already here, or if the mother is dead, or if the marriage has broken up.
The West Indian situation I have, I think, dealt with in part. I recognise that the family relationship in the West Indies is a different one, and it is only right that we should recognise this when looking at family problems. If hon. Gentlemen will look at Cmnd. 3552—Draft Instructions to Immigration Officers—they will see that paragraph I says:
If one parent is dead it is sufficient that the other parent is already resident here, or is accompanying the child. Children aged 16 and under 18 may also be readily admitted in similar circumstances. Parent ' includes a stepfather or stepmother, an adoptive parent, and the father as well as the mother of an illegitimate child.
The rôle of the mother is recognised here, and this is also recognised in paragraph 2, which says:
A child under the age of 18 may be admitted in company with or to join only one parent, although the other is resident outside the United Kingdom, if

(a) in the case of a legitimate child, the parents' marriage has been dissolved and the parent here has legal custody, or

(b) in the case of an illegitimate child, the parent here has had sole responsibility for his upbringing."
There may be circumstances in which it cannot be proved that he has had sole responsibility for the upbringing, and these are precisely the circumstances at which an entry certificate officer looks.
3.15 a.m.
There may be compassionate reasons why, even if the father or mother has not had sole responsibility, the other part of the relationship is unable to maintain his or her share of that responsibility, and therefore there is virtually no link with the other part of the partnership. These are the sort of circumstances with which an entry certificate officer inevitably must deal in the light of the individual case.

Mr. Scott: Many West Indian mothers here are drawing regular sums of money from the fathers of their children in the West Indies. Will this prevent an immigration officer judging that the mother had sole responsibility for the upbringing of the child?

Mr. Ennals: I should not like to give a definitive answer to the hon. Gentleman now. Perhaps he will allow me to answer him in writing. If I give an answer now, it might be added as a new instruction to immigration officers. I should need to consider it.

Mr. Jopling: I heard what the Minister said about the Draft Instructions to Immigration Officers, that a legitimate child could be allowed in if the marriage had been dissolved. Surely it must often be the case that the marriage has not been dissolved—there has been a separation, but no formal divorce—but the mother has come here to try to form a base and make a little money. She leaves the child with a grandparent, and when she thinks that she can cope with the child, she sends for him. Although the marriage has not been formally dissolved, the child will be precluded from coming. This is the nub of the problem. This is very important, particularly for children under 16. There is nothing more important than that the child should be under the care of the mother. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree with that. This is one of the biggest and most glaring inhumanities which arise from the Bill as drafted, and I plead with the hon. Gentleman to see whether he


can find a way to accommodate the child of a marriage which has not been formally dissolved.

Mr. Ennals: I have a great deal of sympathy with the sort of case referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but there is the problem of setting out, either in terms of an Act, or in terms of instructions to immigration officers, every set of circumstances in which compassionate considerations will apply. This is why we must leave a substantial measure of discretion not only to the entry certificate officers, the immigration officers, but to my right hon. Friend and myself when I am acting on his behalf. The sort of considerations put forward by the hon. Gentleman are borne in mind when looking at particularly difficult cases.

Mr. David Steel: I do not think that I need apologise to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), or to anybody else, for having tabled the Amendment. It has fulfilled the purpose that we intended, and we have been able to probe the Government's thinking on this difficult question.
As we have been so hard on the Front Bench, I ought to take the opportunity of thanking the hon. Gentleman for what was a model Ministerial reply to the questions which I put to him. Our opposition to the Bill is not bludgeoning or destructive, but constructive. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply, which I think covered most of the points about which we were anxious, and in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir D. Renton: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 3, line 43, at end insert:
(2D) Entry certificates may be issues for the purposes of this section by United Kingdom diplomatic agents in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(2E) An entry certificate may not be issued under subsection (2A) of this section to any person not described as a ' registered dependant' in a current voucher issued by or on behalf of the Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Labour and National Insurance for Northern Ireland for the purposes of subsection 3(a) of section 2 of this Act.
When the entry certificate procedure was inserted at the Report stage in the proceedings on the 1962 Act, Mr. R. A. Butler—as he then was—said that he

hoped that it would save uncertainty in the minds of would-be immigrants; that it would save them unnecessary journeys, and would have other advantages, the principal of which was that it would enable applications to come here to settle to be checked more easily, for the obvious reason that it is easier to do so in the countries of origin than at London Airport.
Everyone would probably agree about those advantages. But even now the fullest use is not being made of the entry certificate procedure—hence the Amendment. If hon. Members will look at the proposed new subsection (2D) they will see that it will enable the Government to enlist the help of our High Commissioners, consuls and other diplomatic agents overseas so that they can receive applications by intending immigrants, scrutinise them, check the claims made and generally provide an easy and reliable opportunity of extending the entry certificate procedure. The proposal has the advantage of flexibility and of unlimited scope. The Regulations made by the Secretary of State would be laid before the House and, as I understand it, could be prayed against.
The proposed new subsection (2E) would require that dependants should not be issued with entry certificates unless they had already been included as registered dependants in a current employment voucher. The purpose is to strengthen the Bill. Speaking for myself and many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, although I think that the Bill has come too late I welcome it now that it has come. But it does not go far enough.
The main anxiety—and in many ways the main difficulty—that has been caused by the increasingly large numbers of immigrants coming in in the last two or three years has been due to the large numbers of dependants coming in. The figures speak for themselves. In 1966 there was a net increase of 51,000 immigrants from all Commonwealth countries taken together, and of that 51,000 no less than 45,000 were dependants. Although we have not yet had a White Paper on the subject, my recollection, from Answers to Questions, is that in 1967 the figures were even larger—a total net increase from all Commonwealth countries of 61,000, of whom


about 55,000 were dependants. If those figures are not right I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will correct me. I understand that to be the position.
As we heard from the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) earlier, the large numbers of children under 16 years of age coming in create an acute educational problem, especially in the Midlands. From the evidence which has come forward from time to time—admittedly in rather scrappy form, because it necessarily comes forward in that way—it is clear that the provisions about dependants have been abused. I do not want to repeat statements made in earlier debates, but surely we can accept that there is a problem. The Government recognise that there is and in the Bill they have done something to reduce its size.
The new subsection (2A) makes certain requirements about dependants. It is not proposed to reduce the age, although that may be necessary in two or three years unless the Bill has a greater effect than I personally expect. A child must have at least one parent who is a Commonwealth citizen and both parents have to be resident in the United Kingdom, or entering or seeking to enter with the child. Although that is an improvement, I doubt whether it will have more than a marginal effect on the number of dependent children coming in. Even that provision can fairly easily lend itself to abuse, because many of the people coming in do not have marriage certificates and it is not always easy to check whether a wife really is a wife.
Our Amendment will enable a much closer check to be kept on the number of dependent children coming in. I am not sure how far the Government have gone with their administrative arrangements for asking applicants for employment vouchers to declare the number of children who would follow them, but I envisage that that will eventually be the normal practice, and certainly it should be. From that it would follow easily and properly that entry certificates should be granted in respect of children registered as dependants on the employment vouchers, but not normally—there would be exceptions—to those who had not been so entered.
The Amendment provides an opportunity to strengthen the Bill and to deal with one of the problems which the Government must have had in mind when they decided at short notice to introduce the Bill. I well remember that it was difficult to anticipate exactly what the effect of the 1962 legislation would be. Since then we have had an average net increase of 50,000 a year. I hope that the Bill will reduce that average number to a modest total, bearing in mind our present housing and education problems and the fact that we have 600,000 unemployed, quite apart from the important consideration which the Home Secretary mentioned on Second Reading, namely, the need to avoid racial tension. It is hard to estimate the Bill's effect. I doubt whether it will reduce the intake by as much as 10,000 a year, but, if it does not reduce it by more than that, another such Bill will have to be introduced by another Government in two or three years.
3.30 a.m.
Therefore, the Amendment would enable the Government to strengthen the Bill to avoid trouble in future. I do not claim that the drafting is perfect or even satisfactory. The Bill came at very short notice, those who drafted Amendments had a rush job and we did our best to frame Amendments on complicated points. But if the Government accept either half of the Amendment, there is no reason why this matter should not be dealt with when the Bill goes to the Lords tomorrow, as I hope it will.

Mr. Philip Goodhart (Beckenham): The Government do not yet realise the strain which the Instructions to Immigration Officers will impose at ports and airports. The number of immigration officers at London Airport who speak any of the languages of the Indian sub-continent is very small. The facilities for interrogating the immigrants are inadequate for investigating more than a handful. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has issued much tougher instructions—I do not disagree with most of them—the interrogation will be much more intensive and much longer and travellers will face greater delays.
Meanwhile, officers will face strong pressure to reach a hasty decision, which will lead to hard cases such as the Press has described in recent months. There is always an outcry when children who


have travelled thousands of miles are sent back with no certainty that anyone will meet them at the other end. This always arouses protest.
It is obviously best if the problem can be met by the introduction of as wide as possible a system of entry certificates. I am glad that in paragraph 3 of the instructions at least lip-service is paid to the wider use of this system. However, in many parts of the world adequate machinery does not exist to issue these certificates. People cannot get them and. until adequate machinery does exist, bottle necks will occur and there will be the possibility of harsh decisions at London Airport.
The Amendment shows the Government the way to the introduction of a proper system of issuing entry certificates. If this is not done there will be a sharp increase in the number of hard cases, the immigration service will become the target of abuse and the Government will bring down on their heads odium which they need not suffer if they tackled the problem with more forethought.

Mr. Gurden: A great strain is placed on the staff who must decide whether or not some of these dependants are truly dependants. There is considerable suspicion, certainly in the Midlands, that some of the children may not really be the children of people who have come here. It is almost impossible to obtain satisfactory proof that they are the genuine children of immigrants and one hears many stories of how, when it has been necessary for an affidavit to be provided from the country of origin, these documents have been only too easily forthcoming. I cannot be sure about the truth of these stories. Certainly in a few cases an exceptionally large number of children have been claimed to be dependants. This places a tremendous strain on the education service. Some schools in the Midlands cannot take many children who should be at school, with the result that not only are the children of immigrants excluded from schooling, but so are the children of the indigenous population. too,
Since it is so difficult to ensure that dependants are genuine, anything which can be written into the Bill to make the task of the immigration officers easier will be of advantage and I should have

thought that the Government would welcome this attempt to strengthen the Bill. For the sake of housing and education in, for example, Birmingham, I hope that something along the lines of the Amendment will be accepted and, in the meantime, I will listen with interest to the Minister's comments on the subject.

Mr. Ennals: I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) for raising this question. I shall not be able to agree with the method suggested in the Amendment, but my sympathies are with him in the sense of trying to make the entry certificate far more widely used. There is everything to be said for unravelling all the uncertainties of whether a dependant is of a suitable age, whether the relationship is what he claims it to be, etc. All such uncertainties can often be better settled in the country of origin than here, and settled far more effectively than at London Airport, or at other ports where the immigration officer may have felt obliged to refuse admission.
There may have been representatives, a Member of Parliament may have been involved on behalf of an immigrant, and representations have to be made and questions have to be asked. In the meantime, the immigrant may have to be held in detention and later, perhaps, in a prison. All these difficulties are unpleasant and unsatisfactory, and they are also expensive. They also impose very heavy burdens on the immigration officers.
Some kindly things have been said by hon. Members about the Home Office—and some unkind things as well, but never mind—in relation to the handling of these problems. But those who carry the heaviest burdens are the immigration officers, who have the extremely difficult job of trying to make a fair assessment, when ascertaining the facts.
The Government are most anxious that the entry certificate should be used. That is why we wrote into the Draft Instructions to Immigration Officers:
Resort to the entry certificate procedure in such cases will enable the decision to be reached in advance. If nevertheless a Commonwealth citizen who claims admission under that paragraph arrives without an entry certificate, strict proof of the relevant facts should he required, and if this is not available refusal of admission will be appropriate.


It is only fair to say here that while we are not prepared, for reasons I shall come to, to make an entry certificate obligatory—to make it, as it were, a visa, an essential prerequisite for admission—the absence of an entry certificate for a would-be immigrant about whom there is uncertainty will inevitably count against him. That is why these instructions have gone to immigration officers. If people who wish to come to this country do not apply for entry certificates, arrive here and are refused entry, it inevitably means that the refusal rate will grow. I have not the details to hand, but last year there was an increase of about 50 per cent. in the number of people who were refused entry at ports because they were unable to satisfy the immigration officers.
It would be natural to think that an entry certificate ought to be made obligatory. That, I gather, was the view of the party opposite expressed in the statement issued on 21st February, which said:
The entry certificate procedure for non-voucher holders should be mandatory so that their credentials can be checked in their country of origin.
The Wilson Committee, which looked at the whole question very carefully, said:
After careful consideration we have come to the conclusion that it would not be right to make the use of entry certificates compulsory. As the great majority of aliens who come to the United Kingdom are free from the visa requirement, we consider that it would be out of the question to impose on Commonwealth citizens the same requirement under another name.
It must be admitted that if we said that an entry certificate was obligatory it would become a visa, and when we recognise that we have increasingly, by arrangements with foreign countries, successfully removed the visa requirement, leaving it basically to countries with whom we have a rather more distant relationship, to put the Commonwealth countries in that category would be an affront, and would not be acceptable.
We have sought to do two things. The first is to encourage the use of entry certificates by making it as near as it can be certain that the holder of an entry certificate will be admitted. That is almost a guarantee. We cannot say that it is a total guarantee, because it

is quite possible that a person may have acquired a certificate by false pretences which become known to the immigration officers at the time of the person's arrival at the port.
3.45 a.m.
On the one hand we have strengthened the power of the certificate as a guarantee of admission and on the other hand we have said to would-be immigrants," If you come without a certificate and there is uncertainty, the fact that you have not a certificate must count against you." In the White Paper, Cmnd. 2739, there was this paragraph, which was quoted by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) in November:
An entry certificate will not be issued unless the head of the household, whether resident in this country or intending to come in the future, has furnished to the Home Office or, as the case may be, the British post in his country of origin, particulars of his dependants in time to enable the information he has given to be confirmed before the entry certificate is needed.
We tried to bring about this recommendation, but unfortunately it was a scheme based on very shaky foundations. People being registered are by definition entitled to come here under Section 2(2,b) of the Act. This entitlement cannot be qualified by an administrative requirement to obtain an entry certificate or to register names of dependants. Unless we said it was a requirement, we could not refuse the right of entry.
In India and Pakistan there are no reliable public records, and no means of knowing whether the information is accurate. There is no reason to suppose that it is necessarily conclusive proof. Since the scheme affects only those who apply for certificates, it cannot give more than a partial picture of the situation. We asked all those who applied for entry certificates and all those who applied for vouchers and we have a great deal of information as a result, but we find that it is not possible to make this a requirement.
The Amendment would put the issue of entry certificates on a statutory basis and restrict their issue to persons who had been registered as dependants of voucher holders. This would lead to many difficulties. Most of the dependants who now come into the country are dependants of those who arrived before


the 1962 Act was passed. This is why, even though since 1965 the present Government have greatly reduced the number of labour voucher holders, we still have a large number of dependants. When some newspapers say that with every voucher holder come nine dependants, they have got it wrong. Most of those coming in now are dependants of those who came in when there was no control. We find that they come seven, eight, or nine years after.
To require, as the Amendment would, the issue of entry certificates to those who had been registered as dependants of voucher holders might solve some immediate problems, but certainly not for most of those coming in at present.

Mr. Robert Howarth: This seems a reasonable theory for explaining why there is still this very large number of dependants coming in. Can the Department indicate when it is expected that the number of dependants will start tailing off quickly?

Mr. Ennals: It is always difficult to look ahead. I disagree somewhat with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). I think that the decision taken on the earlier subsection affecting the right of dependent boys to join one parent will bite on numbers—not dramatically, but it will bite. It had been my expectation that the number of dependants this year would have been only marginally above last year, and it would be my expectation that the number next year will start to be marginally less. But we shall know only when the figures come in.
There is no doubt that the decision taken in relation to dependent boys, through the figures I gave earlier in regard to a growing section of the dependent tail—if I may put it in that way—and also the harder line taken on the importance of the use of the entry certificate will have an effect on reducing the number of dependants.
There are several other reasons which one might give to show why the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment would be an unsatisfactory way of dealing with the problem. In the circumstances, I hope that he will be prepared to withdraw it.

Sir D. Renton: I shall not press the Amendment to a Division, and I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the explanation which he has given, but I feel rather unhappy that the Government seem to have set in their mind a limitation upon an extension of the entry certificate system. There is a far bigger problem to be dealt with than the Bill as drafted will touch. Administrative methods of one kind and another are most important and will have to be pursued—an extension of the entry certificate system, the development of the voucher system in the way envisaged in the White Paper, and so on.
I follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) about the work of immigration officers. Quite apart from immigration, international travel is increasing at a tremendous rate. I do not know whether the numbers in the immigration service are able to keep up with it. As aeroplanes get larger, as they will, their task will be enormously increased. The Government should be thinking of every possible way of reducing the load, especially at London Airport. This was one of the purposes of the Amendment. Although we shall not press it, I hope that the Government will keep these matters in mind.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the Clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the Amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 47 (Debate on Clause or Schedule standing part),That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 3 (FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON LANDING IN UNITED KINGDOM.)

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 4, line 14, after ' Kingdom ', insert:
'with the intention of avoiding examination by an immigration officer '.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Brewis): We are to discuss with this Amendment the following two Amendments: Amendment No. 40, in page 4, line 35, leave out subsection (4);

Amendment No. 41, in page 5, line 4, leave out subsection (5).

Mr. Hooson: Clause 3 provides for certain offences by amendment of the principal Act, and we are concerned about the way in which the provision is drawn. The new, Section 4A(1) provides:
Subject to the following provisions of this section, if any person being a Commonwealth citizen to whom section 1 of this Act applies lands in the United Kingdom and does not fulfil either of the conditions specified in the next following subsection, he shall be guilty of an offence.'
There is no reference to any need for the prosecution to prove intention. What the Government have in mind is that if anybody lands in this country without fulfilling the requirements of subsection (2) and with the intention of avoiding examination by an immigration officer he shall have committed an offence. Nevertheless, it is not incumbent on the prosecution to prove any intention.
Furthermore, under subsection (4) there is a shifting of the burden of proof that is normal in all our criminal cases. With very rare exceptions, the prosecution must prove the offence. Here the proviso is made that the onus of proof is on the accused. Under the subsection he must prove his innocence, and there is the same provision in subsection (5).
If the Government are intent on an effective Measure, they try to close all loopholes. But it is wrong for them to do so by this method. It is very dangerous in any legislation to reverse the normal onus of proof that have obtained in our courts. It is a negation of justice, and why should we do it?
The Solicitor-General will agree that it is only in very rare circumstances that one can justify having an offence without having to prove any intention, as is the case here and later to reverse the onus of proof and demand of a man that he prove his innocence.
This is entirely unjustified. The Government would have to do a great deal to satisfy us in these circumstances. Unless we are satisfied that very exceptional reasons exist for these highly un

usual provisions we shall have to divide the House on the issue.

The Solicitor-General: I fully appreciate the importance of this matter, which warrants very careful consideration. But in all the circumstances the Clause in its present form is satisfactory and on the whole approaches the problem in a sensible and fair fashion.
The Amendment seeks to spell out the burden which shall be on the prosecution to prove the intention of a person landing in the United Kingdom to avoid examination by an immigration officer. If the Clause did not contain subsection (3) there would be great force in the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, but I invite him to consider the subsection's importance.
It provides that
The Secretary of State may by order provide that subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to a person who lands from a ship or aircraft in such circumstances or combination of circumstances…as may be specified in the order.
4.0 a.m.
What is intended in the Order, and what is contemplated, is that the Order will specify the circumstances where examination by immigration officers is considered wholly unnecessary or impractical, in, for example, cases of seamen on shore leave, or aircrew stopping over between flights, air passengers in transit and passengers travelling within the common travel area formed by the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate the significance of this.
If the form of the Order is such, as is intended, to comprise all—I am tempted to say" imaginable "—reasonably contemplated innocent processes of landing, then I would have thought that the matter of the burden of proof would be regarded as satisfactorily dealt with in the Bill. What I put to the Committee is that if in the Order, the Secretary of State spells out, as it is intended he will, all processes of innocent landing and arrival—the everyday affairs which arouse no suspicion at all—then it leaves a very small area undefined and not dealt with. In that small area I would invite the Committee to take the view that it was reasonable that the burden of proof


should be, as it were, upon a defendant to show what reason he had for landing or arriving in what, on this hypothesis, would be a wholly unusual and exceptional fashion.
This is a difficult matter, as the Committee will appreciate—to establish intention. One derives intention, or one's knowledge of intention, from the available facts and it is often a necessary element in a prosecution. None the less it is a difficult matter, and in my submission, when one has narrowed down the area of risk by setting out, as is intended in the Order, the correct and legitimate arrivals and landings, and so forth, and one leaves a very small area of suspect arrival and landing, then in that context I suggest that it is entirely fair and reasonable that the person arriving should be in a position of having to satisfy the court that he is upon a legitimate purpose, and in the event of his failing to do so, that the assumption must be drawn that he is appearing unlawfully and in contravention of subsection (3). That is the submission I make on this point, to which we have given careful thought.

Mr. Gurden: I am not a lawyer, and the previous speakers know more about these legal matters than I do. It seems a bit odd, and I am open to criticism because I may be wrong, that a person who arrives in this country legitimately and presents himself to the immigration officer should have the burden placed upon him to prove that he is entitled to come into the country. Apparently, if a person is suspect and arrives at a port, under this Amendment the burden of proof is not put on him. He would be placed at some advantage as compared with the man who attempted to enter legitimately. I am not quite sure that I understand why such an Amendment has been moved.

Mr. Hooson: What I find unsatisfactory about the Solicitor-General's reply is that by subsection (3)
The Secretary of State may by order provide".
It is not necessary, therefore, for the Secretary of State to do this. It is a discretionary power which is being taken and it might not be exercised. I under

stood the hon. and learned Gentleman virtually to indicate that it is the definite intention of the Secretary of State to make such an Order as is provided for by subsection (3). Are we to take it that that is a definite undertaking despite the use of the word "may"?
I accept immediately that, as the Solicitor-General has said, the risk is within a very small sphere, but it is a risk of real injustice. In all our legislation, the chances of an injustice are always fairly small, but there is a chance of a real injustice which need not occur. It is unnecessary to have this provision.
If the Government accepted that the prosecution would have to prove an intention, it would not be a difficult matter. It is a matter to infer from the circumstances. What one envisages here, however, is a man who is not very articulate, who is in the country innocently, who might accidently have lost his papers and who is in the unhappy position of having to prove his innocence, and the prosecution not having to prove any intention on his part. It appears that in these circumstances there is a small chance of an injustice, but the chance is of a serious injustice being done.

The Solicitor-General: I fully acknowledge that my argument to the Committee was founded upon the point that in the great majority of arrivals, the relevant matters and circumstances would be the subject of an Order under subsection (3). I still claim that that is a sound argument and a sound way of approaching the matter.
In the circumstances, I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to give an undertaking that there will be an Order of the kind contemplated permissively in subsection (3). I give that undertaking, which, I hope, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) will regard as all-important in this context, because when an Order has been made, and the Order deals with the vast majority of normal transits and arrivals, the kind of arrival with which the hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned will be confined to that very small category of arrival which is inherently suspect and where, in our submission, this treatment of the matter of burden of proof is appropriate

Mr. Hooson: In view of that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4. (EXAMINATION OF PERSONS LANDING IN UNITED KINGDOM.)

Mr. Mapp: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 5, line 34, leave out ' twenty-eight ' and insert ' ninety '.

The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment, we can discuss also the similar Amendment, No. 42, in Clause 3, page 5, line 12.

Mr. Mapp: I was inclined to raise a point of order on your decision, Mr. Brewis, to take the two Amendments together, Amendment No. 42 proposes the same thing in connection with Clause 3. which the Committee has just approved. I hope that I will not be ruled out on a technicality, because the one Amendment is consistent with the other.
Hitherto we have been told that if a person has been able to conceal himself sucessfully for 24 hours, having landed illegally and avoided the regulations, he is free to remain here. The Bill seeks to widen that period to 28 days, for obvious reasons. The Amendment seeks to widen the period of 28 days to 90 days.
On Second Reading, in answer to an intervention by me, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said:
I have not had representations particularly from police forces in the North of England, but I have had representations on this matter and I should be willing to consider it again in Committee. Whether it should be 28 or 56 days is a matter of opinion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1245.]
The question arose again later in the speech of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). He said:
The 24-hour rule is to be extended to 28 days. Why limit it to 28 days? If people are coming in illegally, why give them a run of 28 days?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1351.]
The Under-Secretary of State said:
There has been some question whether it is right: to make the extension from 24 hours to 28 days, and this is the point which

my right hon. Friend would like to consider in Committee—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1353.]
We have now reached that stage.
I wish to deal with the point which has been in my mind throughout. Today I have made inquiries of the Police Federation. I should have liked to consult the association of chief constables, but I was not able to do so. However, having read to the Secretary of the Police Federation the extract which I have read to the Committee, I am unable to quote what he said. He pointed out that he was not shielded by any collective decision of his body, because this legislation was an emergency and no time was available. But he wondered why there should be any time limit at all. We must respect his judgment and opinion. I said, "May I say more or less that?", and he stated, "Yes, that would be my personal opinion". I respect that view, and I believe from my experience as a magistrate over some years that it is right.
However, my Amendment does not say that. It seeks to be a little more practical. I am not aware of any legislation. except legislation covering mental conditions, in which are written very narrow periods for enforcement outside which people cannot commit an offence. That is what we are providing in the Bill. A person who amounts to a criminal, having succeeded for the time being in obtaining entry to the country without going through the processes which the House of Commons lays down, is outside the control.
4.15 a.m.
I want in particular to make a point which the Committee should really bear in mind. For up to 24 hours the immigrants, in the main, are in the area of the point of arrival—at the airport or on the coast of South-East England. That means that enforcement is within the hands of the immigration people. I have discussed this with my own Chief Constable of Oldham. I imagine that other hon. Members have discussed it with theirs. I am not without some contacts in that range in Lancashire. They have intimate knowledge of what happens, and when I put this point to them they said, quite frankly, that it would be very difficult for them if they had laid upon them the obligation to seek out, find and establish and make


a charge, or, at any rate, bring to justice people who have illegally entered. The time span is quite insufficient for them to perform that duty. That being the case, enforcement is likely to be lacking in effectiveness.
I want to relate what has happened in my own area over the last few weeks. I have quite a large number of coloured people, particularly from India, especially from Pakistan. Recently there was in the newspaper some news about something which had happened at Dover. Within a few days of that I got inquiries from people who had lost their passports. The first two or three I regarded, as most hon. Members would, as quite sincere and genuine, but when the number grew I began to suspect things. The fact is that there are many lost passports. What has happened to them I should not like to assert here, but I do know that most people of this kind would hang on to their passports probably more than I would to mine.
I am a little knowledgeable about the movement of this kind of person and I have had discussions with people who have the job of enforcement and who are very knowledgeable about the movement of this kind of person. The average immigrant is in one way or another sheltered at first in London for a few days, and then, having got so far with his contacts, he is taken by them on the next journey, probably to Bradford. Having got that far he is then able to get accommodation through the associations which there are in Lancashire and Yorkshire towns, and he finds himself accommodated in one of them. By this time, three or four weeks have elapsed since his arrival. The police are alerted to such conditions.
I put it to the Home Secretary as fairly as I can. The police, in their inquiries, have to ask a lot of social and governmental local agencies. I need not go into them. I think most hon. Members can think what they are.
A remarkable thing came to my know- ledge, and most hon. Members will probably know nothing about this, and have probably never thought of it hitherto. Those of us who are used to one colour quickly recognise faces, but the police have considerable difficulty in identifying the faces of, and in being able to be

certain about, particular people from some parts of Asia. That is a very big obstacle to their being able to prosecute with effectiveness and assurance.
Having got information from one or another of the agencies the police may visit a person, and immediately there is a disappearance overnight—from Lancashire to Yorkshire, or Yorkshire to Lancashire, as the case may be. There are about 500 or 600 people moving over the hills between the two counties. I am not saying they are illegal immigrants, but they are largely mobile. It is because of this that I ask the Committee to approve the principle here.
I have mentioned the difficulties of the police, and I have touched lightly on the way in which people tend to disappear as soon as inquiries are made. Frequently they find, when they succeed in questioning a person whom they suspect of entering the country illegally, that his passport has been lost. There are good reasons now why such people are seeking to obtain copies. I have had 10 or a dozen cases brought to my notice in the last few weeks, and I began to suspect the real reason when I heard about the third case.
Questioning by the police must, of necessity, be spread over some little time. All too often, if the police question a person, overnight there is a disappearance, and he nips over into Yorkshire or, if necessary, comes back to London. With all the good will in the world on their part, a period of 28 days is not enough time for the enforcement authorities to pursue and bring to justice those who have entered the country illegally.
The Bill speaks of 28 days from a certain event, but, once these people have got away from their point of arrival, the date of their arrival is uncertain to a provincial policeman. If the police are working against a legal limitation of 28 days, one wonders how far they will be encouraged to bring a case to a conclusion. It will not help the police to succeed in their enforcement duties.
The issue is a simple one, and I shall be interested to hear what the Home Secretary has to say. I am aware of the flexibility of his mind, and I hope that what I have said will persuade him


to extend the period to 90 days. The police in Lancashire tell me that the 24 hours did not matter to them. They never had cases to deal with, because there were no points of arrival in their areas. However, before 28 days have elapsed, illegal immigrants will have come to their areas, and, from now on, they will be dealing with cases. If they are to have a reasonable chance of success in carrying out the legislation which is imposed upon them, they should have a reasonable time in which to do it.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) has great experience in these matters and obviously has done a good deal of research, in the course of which he has consulted a great many people.
I think that there was general agreement in the House when this matter was raised that the period of 24 hours during which a Commonwealth citizen could be required to submit to examination by an immigration officer was far too short.
It was for this reason that, on considering the matter, I inserted the period of 28 days into the Bill. Now there is a proposal to extend my powers even further, and as I am not omnivorous for power I am going to indicate, with respect, that I do not wish to have this extension but prefer to keep to 28 days.
There are good reasons why this should be so. I indicated on Second Reading that I thought it would not be right for the police to act on their own in any period after seven days. There is a case for them to act as it were in hot pursuit, for saying that they can deal with a man who has sand on his boots—not snow, but sand in this case—and one can say clearly from the evidence, provided the man is not a university student, that he has just landed.
There is a sort of case one would be able to deal with summarily, but I have, as I indicated to the House, given instructions, or shall do when this becomes law, that no case of a Commonwealth immigrant who has been here for longer than seven days, or is believed to have been here longer than seven days, should be dealt with summarily except with reference to myself.
Although I have absolute confidence in the police, I think in a matter of this

sort, where so many questions can arise as the trail becomes more dead the longer a man has been here, police action should begin to fade out and other action should begin to take over.
I promised my hon. Friend, who spoke to me about this, to consider whether I should extend the period from 28 days, during which I would preserve to myself more executive action—assuming it were 56 or 90 days—in which I could reach a conclusion on a matter.
However, when I went into it again it seemed to me that this was unnecessary, because after 28 days I can fade out of the picture in one sense, and the matter goes to the courts. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend fully understood this. The man concerned is not entirely free of obligation if he has escaped examination for 28 days. During the next five months he may be brought before a magistrates' court and charged with the offence of not submitting himself to examination by an immigration officer. A recommendation for a deportation order may then be made by the magistrate, which I would then consider and say to it either "Yes" or "No".
I can think of a number of domestic circumstances where, even though a man had entered illegally in the first place, the effluxion of time before he was brought to court might lead me to conclude that on balance more injustice might be done by sending him back than by allowing him to remain. I am not saying I would adopt this as a general rule, but I should want to consider these matters.
To sum up, there are three phases: what I would call hot pursuit, where the police literally see the man within a day or two or immediately he lands, and it is quite clear he has not submitted himself to examination. After that, seven days to 28 days during which I reserve to myself the right to take the decision, where the case has been clearly established that he has illegally landed. Thirdly, after 28 days the courts would take over, and I would expect the case to have to be proved in the courts before a deportation order could be made. That period would last for up to six months.
Although I recognise my hon. Friend's motives, and that he is trying as it were to help me to deal with illegal immigrants, I hope that at least in this matter


I shall be on the side of the angels by saying I prefer not to have an extension of time but would prefer it to be dealt with in this way wherever possible.
I am satisfied that, where it is so dealt with, the courts will handle the matter properly. I can then consider the position, when they have made their recommendation. Justice would be done then between the man who has illegally landed and the man who has tried to come in through the normal provisions but has failed.
I hope that with that explanation, particularly in view of the fact that the illegal immigrant does not wholly escape after 28 days and that there are provisions for examining him, my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

4.30 a.m.

Mr. Gurden: The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) said, and I can confirm this having spoken to members of the police force, that the police are not satisfied with this provision. Has the right hon. Gentleman had any advice from the police that they agree that this is sufficient time? All the evidence that I have had shows that it is not. The police think that they need longer to deal with this problem.

Mr. Callaghan: I have not been told this by the police authorities. It may be that there are individual policemen who would like more time in which to be able to send a man back to his country without recourse to the courts, but this is a matter for Parliament to decide. Although the police may think that they would like a longer period in which to do this, I submit that it is our job to decide what the period of time should be. This will not prevent them from conducting their investigations and bringing a man before a magistrates' court, and that, I think, after a period of 28 days, is the proper way to do it.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I do not think my right hon. Friend will thank me—or perhaps he might—if I suggest that he is being naive or ingenuous when he uses phrases like "sand on his boots" and "you can tell from their clothes whether they have only just arrived". This may be true of some

poor souls who are ferried across the Channel to the South-East or South of England, but there are many other ways of getting into the country.
It is surprising how hon. Members acquire information which they do not seek. There is growing up throughout the country a small but expensive underground trail for people who pay for passages to this country. If the immunity did not automatically cease, or appear to do so, after 28 days, the payment for using this underground trail would be raised considerably. They would have to pay considerably more if it was necessary to hide them for three months before they could come to the notice of employment exchanges, National Insurances offices, and other above ground organisations.
The police have more than eough to do without worrying what happens to these people after 28 days. They lose interest in looking for them. We are not trying to overload my right hon. Friend with advice. We are not trying to prevent more people coming here than have arrived already, but those who come here by this underground route are taking the place of people who have a better right to come in in the normal way in the queue. If we can deter them, and save some people from undertaking this exercise, which is not always successful, we will achieve something. An assurance was given yesterday that my right hon. Friend would look again at this period of 28 days. That is what we are asking him to do tonight.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough): After what the right hon. Gentleman has so courteously said, I hesitate to trouble him again, but I cannot see why there has to be a time limit at all. I think that the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) made out a strong case. Anybody who comes to this country illegally should be brought to book, whenever the case comes to light. After all, if someone commits an offence he has to pay for it if he is caught, whatever period of time may elapse between the commission of the offence and his being caught.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the difficulty which the police have in identifying some Asians and Africans. I can confirm that this is a real difficulty, especially among some of the county


police forces. There was a vivid illustration of this in my constituency not long age when three Pakistanis were seen in a motor car which was involved in an accident. Although they were seen by a number of people, when the three men were paraded later, no one was able to identify the driver of the vehicle, simply because it was impossible to pick out one from the other.
I support what the hon. Member for Oldham, East said. I cannot see why there has to be any time limit, but if there has to be I suggest that the Amendment should be adopted and that the time limit should be 90 days.

Mr. Callaghan: We are not discussing the question whether there should be any limit or no limit; we are discussing the question whether there should be a limit of 90 days in which the police can act. I am saying that it should be 28 days, after which the courts take over. I still think that that is right. From what my hon. Friend said, it appears that some policemen and some of the underground smuggling organisations are under a delusion about the position. I hope that I have made it clear—perhaps this debate will make it clear, if it is reported—that a man is not free from control after 28 days. He can still be brought before a magistrates' court—indeed, he will commit an offence which up to a period of six months could involve conviction and a recommendation for deportation.
I hope that the police forces will understand their liabilities. The only difference that this Act will make is that the police will have a period of 28 days in which to act on their own.

Mr. Gurden: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that that information is given to the police, because there is some misunderstanding on this point?

Mr. Mapp: I am not hostile to my right hon. Friend; nor do I reject his reply. I have some little knowledge of court work—on the right side of the bench—and I want again to refer to what the Home Secretary said about the police. I still feel that the police will think that the operative period in which they can enforce the law is 28 days. It is up to my right hon. Friend to put this right. The advice of the chief constables does not seem to be the same as that which

the Home Secretary has given. However, I do not wish to delay the Committee.
The words of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) are pregnant with meaning; it may appear to the police that their powers will cease on the 28th day. If that is so, what we are doing now will be of little avail to deal with people who enter illegally. I hope that that is not the case.
In the light of what my right hon. Friend has said, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6. (INTERPRETATION AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS.)

Question proposed,That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. John Tilney: I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to what the Clause attempts to do. I am no lawyer, and I hate Bills which refer to past Acts, which means that one has to look up the principal Acts in order to understand them. I am amazed how difficult it has been to get a copy of the principal Act in the last few days.
The Committee will see that under Section 18 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, an almost privileged class was established, consisting of those people who lived in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Anyone living there and having his domicile there was excluded from the operation of that Act. I hope that the narrow scope of that provision can be widened during the passage of the Bill.
I give the Home Secretary notice that on Report I shall suggest an Amendment to widen the scope to include Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands as well as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The right hon. Gentleman may say that the Bill has nothing to do with Gibraltar and the Isle of Man, but the Bill creates four classes of United


Kingdom passport. The right hon. Gentleman has devalued the £ and by the Bill he is devaluing the British passport, but not, I hope—although some people think that he is—the word "Britain". We shall now have two types of United Kingdom passport, a passport for the United Kingdom and Colonies and a fourth kind of passport for people who live in British Protectorates. I am extremely worried about the effect of putting into the third category those people who live in Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, and I give notice that I shall try to move an Amendment on Report to deal with their situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7. (SHORT TITLE, AND CITATION COMMENCEMENT.)

Question proposed,That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. David Steel: I should like the Home Secretary to reaffirm something which he said earlier—it may have been yesterday, but I am beginning to lose track of time. He said that the Bill would come under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. Can he confirm that, and can he say when the House will next have an opportunity to debate these matters?

Mr. Callaghan: When the Bill becomes law, it will become part of the main Commonwealth Immigrants Act, which comes under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act which is debated in November of each year.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause No. 2. (CONSTRUCTION.)

Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to limit or deny political asylum to any person seeking refuge in the United Kingdom from racial or political persecution.—[Mr. Hooley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hooley: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Government will be aware that 1968 is the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of which Article 14 states:
Everyone has the right to proceed to and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
This country in general has an excellent record of granting political asylum to people from other countries, both individually and, at various times, when there has been a mass exodus from political persecution. For the citizen of a foreign country the position is fairly clear. He has no right to come to this country. He may simply ask for asylum and it is within the discretion of the Home Secretary to grant it, or withhold it.
However, the Bill will create a somewhat different situation for United Kingdom citizens who are suffering from persecution and who apply for asylum in this country. He may be told that he need not be granted asylum, because he has the right to come here, although that right may not be exercised until next year, or the following year or 20 years hence, that he has the right, but cannot exercise it at once.
4.45 a.m.
I should like this ambiguity cleared up, so that the Act cannot be used to refuse a United Kingdom citizen asylum. The peculiar position of these people under the Bill is that if they sought political asylum they could be told that they were trying to avoid the controls and that, with that right of entry, they had no need of the grace of the authorities. This worries me and I should like it cleared up.

The Solicitor-General: The legal concept of political asylum is not affected by the Bill, and there is therefore—this must be my logical advice—no need for the new Clause. Historically, political asylum has been overtly granted only to aliens. It is not referred to in any Statute or Statutory Instruments but is granted by administrative practice under the Aliens Order. It was not mentioned in the 1962 Act, which is important, considering how far the Bill's terms and provisions are woven into that Act.
Some technical points could be raised here, and I do not suggest that they are more than that. There is the question whether political asylum can arise for holders of United Kingdom passports. There is something paradoxical in the concept of a country giving political asylum to its own citizens. I do not want to be too metaphysical, but there are difficulties of logic and law which it would be wrong to under-estimate.
The practical test of the matter of political asylum, according to well-settled practice, is that it is granted only if it is reasonable to suppose that the result of refusing entry into this country would mean the return of an alien to a country in which he would face danger to life or liberty, Dr persecution of such a kind as to render life insupportable by reason of race, religion, nationality or membership of a political group or opinion. The Committee may think that we are far from that area in dealing with this Measure. My recommendation would be not to agree to the new Clause for the reasons I have adumbrated, and mainly because the treatment of political asylum has been thus far so confined. It has not been referred to in our Statute law or in Statutory Instruments and there is no reference to it in the 1962 Act.
In the circumstances, I invite the Committee to take the view that it is better not to have an overt treatment of this concept of political asylum in the Bill.

Sir D. Renton: From my experience of having to consider applications for political asylum, I have no hesitation in supporting what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. In practice, and within its definition, political asylum is a somewhat narrower concept than is often believed and, as he said, it has been applied only to aliens.
The hon. and learned Gentleman was candid when he said that, in considering the position of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies carrying British passports who will have no right to enter this country once the Bill is passed, he was being somewhat metaphysical. Undoutedly that is the position. He was being somewhat metaphysical, but there is the dilemma that if he were otherwise and if he were to accept the concept of political asylum as rather broadly stated in the new Clause, he would be undermining the foundation of the Bill. He

therefore had no option—some of us might regret this; I certainly do—but to advise the Committee not to accept the new Clause because the foundation of the Bill would be undermined.

Mr. Edwin Brooks (Bebington): I had not intended to intervene at this late hour, and because it is so late I may be more confused than usual. What has been said has left me totally bewildered. Of course, in the past the concept of political asylum has been relevant only to aliens, and when my hon. and learned Friend said that there was something illogical in considering the granting of political asylum to citizens of the United Kingdom, I could not, in normal circumstances, agree with him more. But the illogicality is confounded in the circumstances of the Bill, for we are, in effect, not only putting citizens of the United Kingdom in a position where they are possessed of no more rights than aliens, but are putting them in a position where they might be possessed of fewer rights than aliens.
It seems to me to be extraordinary that if, say, a citizen of the United Kingdom resident in Kenya who is subjected to racialism or political persecution continues to hold his United Kingdom passport he thereby does not qualify for political asylum because he is such a citizen, but if he then decides to burn, perhaps publicly, his passport in the main square in Nairobi so that he becomes stateless—I am not sure whether he then becomes an alien but, presumably, he is no longer a citizen of the United Kingdom because he has abrogated the contract which we accept can be abrogated by either party as a result of the Bill—he does qualify to be considered sympathetically for political asylum.
I have a vision, even in my befuddled mood at 5 o'clock in the morning, of a vast concourse of citizens of the United Kingdom publicly burning their passports in Nairobi so as to qualify thereby for sympathetic treatment by a Government who can no longer honour the obligation to them as citizens of the United Kingdom that they should be protected from racial or political persecution.
There comes a time when, no matter how sympathetic one may be to what is undoubtedly a dilemma of government—a dilemma which is rooted in many years of uncertainty and, to some extent, in


honourable motives that have been overtaken by events—and no matter how far one can accept that there must be a restriction on immigration to this country—and that is a point I certainly do accept—one must ask whether by producing a Bill which is capable of the sort of idiotic confusion that I have tried, no doubt very inadequately, to illustrate, one is really helping any purpose known to a democratic assembly, or any purpose which could possibly in the long run solve this gnawing agony of racialism in the modern world.
I should have thought that if there was no reason to assume that the Bill would in any way limit that spirit of generosity that has been shown for many generations in this country to victims of racial and political persecution, if there is nothing in the Bill which implies that, there is no harm in making the point quite explicit. For that reason, I am bound to find myself in support of the proposal contained in the new Clause.

Mr. Richard Wainwright (Colne Volley): From this side of the Committee I feel very much obliged to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) for tabling his new Clause. I hope that it will be accepted, and accepted with good grace. It may be said that it is tabled out of a great abundance of caution, but the distressing events of the last few days have proved to the House how much an abundance of caution is necessary in order that some residual rights may be protected.
I found it quite impossible to accept, or even fully to follow, the consensus arguments of the two Front Benches. The Solicitor-General was careful, and candid, to remind the Committee, as I understood him, that political asylum is not embodied in any Statute, but is a concept. That may be a situation of which, as so often happens, we should take advantage here. If there is a concept, there is no reason why it should not be a developing concept and be made to meet the quite unprecedented and unfortunate situation with which the Committee is faced. It is a concept that might be suitably adapted to new circumstances in which a class of persons who might be described as semi-alien is being created. The right hon. and learned

Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) suggested that this Clause might undermine—I think he said "would undermine"—the whole purpose of the Bill.

Sir D. Renton: I said it could.

5.0 a.m.

Mr. Wainwright: I accept that and ask whether he therefore thinks that the main purpose of the Bill can also be undermined by the statements made by the Home Secretary earlier during these proceedings when he is reported to have said:
If a man is thrown out of work, if he is ejected from the country, we shall have to take him in.
If that is a correct report of what the Home Secretary said, surely the right hon. and learned Member must believe that the main purpose of the Bill is already likely to be undermined and that it will not suffer any more seriously from this new Clause.

Sir D. Renton: That seems to go beyond the scope of this Amendment.

Mr. Wainwright: This Clause, in the light of the quite unprecedented problems which have been pushed upon us in the last few days, would at least provide some modest protection for possibly a small class of persons, and in the position in which we are placed the possibility of redeeming the fortunes of even a small class of persons ought not to be overlooked.

Mr. Hooley: I am not much reassured by the cheerful unanimity of the two learned Gentlemen on the two Front Benches. The argument that this provision does not apply in the principal Act is quite beside the point because the principal Act did not create the absurd situation which this Bill seeks to create.

The Solicitor-General: I was not aware of unanimity on this matter between the two Front Benches. We may have arrived at the same conclusion, but it seems that we reached it by very different roads.

Mr. Hooley: At this time of the morning I cannot worry about the roads by which the learned Gentlemen arrived wherever they did arrive. The Solicitor-General said they arrived at the same


conclusion. That appears to be more or less unanimity.
It is beside the point to argue that there is nothing of this kind in the principal Act, because the principal Act did not create the kind of situation that this Bill seeks to create in which United Kingdom citizens may be debarred from entering the country of their citizenship. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said there was a certain illogicality in talking about political asylum for anyone other than aliens. That is because of the illogicality of the Bill. We are creating a pseudo-logical category for people who are our citizens. I would

Division No. 76.]
AYES
[5.5 a.m.


Anderson, Donald
Higgins, Terence L.
Mendelson, J. J


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hooley, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Bessell, Peter
Hooson, Emlyn
Pardoe, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Body, Richard
Hunt, John
Scott, Nicholas


Brooks, Edwin
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se amp; Spenb'gh)
Sinclair, Sir George


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnston, Russeli (Inverness)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Judd, Frank
Tllney, John


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter amp; Chatham)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Ellis, John
Lestor, Miss Joan
Whitaker, Ben


Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)
Lubbock, Eric
Winnick, David


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Macdonald, A. H.
Winstaniey, Dr. M. P.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Madennan, Robert



Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Haseldine, Norman
Maddan, Martin
Mr. David Steel and


Heseltine, Michael
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Mr. Richard Wainwright.




NOES


Allan, Scholefield
Fernyhough, E.
Mapp, Charles


Armstrong, Ernest
Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fowler, Gerry
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ginsburg, David
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Goodhart, Philip
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bishop, E. S.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Moyle, Roland


Blackburn, F.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Murray, Albert


Bradley, Tom
Gurden, Harold
Oakes, Gordon,


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hazelt, Bert
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, Bob(N'c'tie-upon. Tyne, W.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oswald, Thomas


Buchan, Norman
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Palmer, Arthur


Cant, R. B.
Hoy, James
Pentland, Norman


Carmichael, Neil
Huckfield, Leslie
Perry, Ernest G. (Battertea, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Ciedwyn (Anglesey)
Price, William (Rugby)


Chapman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Probert, Arthur


Coe, Denis
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pym, Francis


coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (K'ston- on-Hull, W.)
Rees, Meriyn


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham,S)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, T. Atec (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrlngton)
Leadbitter, Ted
Robinson. Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Davies, G. Eifed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dobson, Ray
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Doig, Peter
McBride, Neil
Small, William


Dunnett, Jack
McCann, John
Snow, Julian


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
MacColl, James
Stainton, Keith


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Swingler, Stephen


English, Michael
Mackie, John
Taverne, Dick


Ennals, David
MoMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Eyre, Reginald
Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thornton, Ernest


Farr, John
Manuel, Archie
Tinn, Jamee

have welcomed an assurance from my Front Bench that, whatever the precise legal definition, if a case of genuine political persecution arose relating to a United Kingdom citizen whose right of entry had been barred as a consequence of this Measure, he would be given sympathetic consideration for asylum here and that the actual provisions of this Measure would not be invoked to deny asylum on strictly political grounds

Question put,That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided:Ayes 44, Noes 122.

Urwin, T. W.
Whitlock, William
Yates, Victor


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)



Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wallace, George
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Mr. Eric G. Varley and


Welts, William (Walsali, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Mr. loan L. Evans,

The Deputy Chairman: The next new Clause selected is new Clause No. 3, with which we can discuss new Clause No. 4:
Citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies holding United Kingdom passports shall, for a period of ninety days after the passing of this Act, have the right to appeal to the Secretary of State for the Home Department against the refusal of admission by an immigration officer. or the conditions of admission imposed by an immigration officer.
new Clause No. 5:
For a period of ninety days after the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State for the Home Department shall decide on appeals against the decisions of immigration officers made under this Act; during that period of ninety days the draft of an order establishing a Commonwealth Immigrants Appeals Tribunal must be laid before Parliament.
and new Clause No. 6.
The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (6) of section 2 of the principal Act:—
' (6A) An appeal shall lie to the High Court against any decision of an immigration officer or diplomatic agent under section 2 of this Act based on a disputed issue of fact or of the interpretation of this Act '.
If the Committee should require it, we may have a Division on new Clause No. 6.

New Clause 3. (APPEALS.)

(1) Any person aggrieved by the refusal of the immigration officer to grant him admission to the United Kingdom or the conditions imposed on such admission may appeal to the magistrates' court having jurisdiction for the area in which the said person entered the United Kingdom.

(2) On consideration of the said appeal the court may—

(a) dismiss the appeal; or
(b) allow the appeal on any conditions which the immigration officer was empowered to make under his statutory powers.

(3) No appeal shall lie from a decision of the magistrates' court save on a point of law by way of case stated to the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court.

(4) Pending the hearing of an appeal to the magistrates' court the person aggrieved may be allowed to enter the United Kingdom upon such conditions as the immigration officer thinks fit.—[Mr. Whitaker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Whitaker: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Ogden: On a number of occasions during yesterday's and today's debate we heard how compassionate and generous our right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are, and how carefully they will treat the powers given them. Yet at this stage the Bill looks remarkably like the one which was presented to us.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to think again of the assurances given yesterday about appeals machinery in Kenya and about questions put to him in the latter part of that debate about the establishment of an almost similar system for appeals in this country. New Clauses 4 and 5, roughly worded as they are, are simply a peg on which can be hung the demand for an appeals machinery against decisions of United Kingdom immigration officers acting in this country, similar in one form or another to the appeals machinery established in Kenya.
5.15 a.m.
We have to have a system that we can operate speedily because we want the appeals machinery to come into force at the same time as the Act. There would be some provision for a more thought-out and permanent system to be introduced later. Some of my hon. Friends have thought of using the magistrates' courts. This would be as acceptable to me as my own suggestion. In this series of Amendments we are arguing for some appeals machinery to be established in the United Kingdom to consider appeals against decisions made in the United Kingdom by United Kingdom officers. This is not to cast any doubts upon the fairness of the decisions of these officers who are trying to do their duty, but if it is right to establish an appeals machinery in one part of the world, it is right to establish it here. We will argue strongly for assurances on this and ask for some system of appeals machinery to be established here.

Mr. Hogg: As the Committee will see, we too have a new Clause dealing with this subject of appeals, which I hope the


Committee will take into consideration when it comes to a conclusion on this matter. In the time available we did not have the opportunity either of hearing the Secretary of State's undertaking with regard to his lawyers in Nairobi or elsewhere when we put this new Clause down, nor did we have an opportunity of considering at any length the various alternatives which lie before us.
The way in which we framed this appeal is designed to give a workable approach to the matter. As I said on Second Reading, I have never been enamoured of any legal machinery which takes away from the Secretary of State, and therefore Parliament, the ultimate decision as to whether it is right or wrong to admit someone. To do so is to substitute legalism for compassion and discretion. I am sure that compassion and discretion, especially in the limited numbers of immigrants immediately affected by the Bill, is the order of the day and that Parliament would wish to retain control.
Quite apart from compassion and discretion there are issues which are truly justiciable, and I see no reason why such issues should not be subject to an appeal to some form of legal machinery. Those issues come under two headings. The first is disputed issues of fact. These can be determined in the courts in the same way that they determine any other question of fact. For instance, if an immigrant claims to have had a grandfather living in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, he would be free from the controls in the first Clause of the Bill and he would be entitled within a reasonable time, and the decision being given adversely to him, to accumulate evidence and present it to a court to show that the immigration officer, who must inevitably make a spot decision, may have been mistaken.
The second type of justiciable issue is questions of law. I do not mean simply the interpretation of instructions to the immigration officer. Clearly, up to a point the Home Secretary would not wish the written instructions to an officer to be the subject of comment or decision in the courts. As part of his own discretion he can alter them within limits according to whatever requirements he makes for himself. But the interpretation of a Statute is part of the ordinary

work of the courts, and that can be easily made the subject of a judicial decision. Anybody who has lived through these two days of discussion will know that there is an infinitely large number of legal questions connected with the interpretation of this Bill or the principal Act which can arise for determination. There is no reason why the courts should not decide them.
It seems a little slapdash, but we were working against time. I proposed that there should be the opportunity of appeal to the High Court because it is a tribunal which I much respect, despite attempts to indicate the contrary by one of our former Members and because very difficult questions could give rise to further appeals to higher courts. I could have proposed the magistrates' court, which is a much cheaper proceeding. If the Home Secretary would indicate that that was his preference, I would not wish at this hour to stand upon a technicality of this kind.
We on this side would like to see an appeals system of some kind, and, while I respect what the Home Secretary has done on his initiative and do not wish to criticise it in any way, we should like this matter to be considered carefully by the Government as the suggestion is put forward in good faith and, although done in haste, is the result of a good deal of discussion and consultation.

Mr. Frank Judd: A good deal has been said about the Government's commitment to work for racial harmony in our community. This is an objective of the Government which we all respect. But what will affect the work for racial harmony is what happens, and what is seen to happen, at the port of entry to Britain. It is very important that justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done. For this reason, I support all those who have argued that we should have a Clause on the lines suggested.
The advantage of new Clause 3 is that, when the Home Secretary says that there is a shortage of financial resources with which to tackle this problem, it suggests a method by which it can be tackled through existing channels at the minimum expense.

Mr. Hooson: We are in the Bill departing a great deal from the standards of justice and fair play which we were led


to believe would apply to our relationship with anybody who held a British passport, but do not let us depart so far from our normal principles that we do not provide for an appeal procedure.
I should have thought that the least that the Government could do to adjust the situation in this pretty appalling Bill was to ensure that there was a proper appeals machinery. It is obvious that a great deal of power will be in the hands of immigration officers. No doubt the immigration service performs its duty in a very fine way, but there should always be the right of appeal on a matter so important to the individual as the restriction of a right of entry even though he holds a passport. I should have thought that the obvious solution was to allow a right of appeal to the magistrates' court. I would prefer that right to the one outlined by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), because it is cheaper and quicker. New Clause No. 3 provides for the right of appeal on a point of law by way of case stated to the Divisional Court. It is essential that there should be a simple, swift appeal procedure built into the Bill. I hope that the Minister will accept one or other of the new Clauses.

Sir G. Sinclair: I support the proposal of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). For a long time it has been thought that there is a need for an appeals procedure against the decisions of hard-pressed immigration officers, especially on matters of fact. My right hon. and learned Friend was indifferent whether the procedure involved the High Court or the magistrates' court, but it would give added confidence in the fair treatment by this country to immigrants at their most sensitive time, which is the time of entry, when their entry is being questioned. If they feel that they have this ultimate right, I do not expect that they will seek to exercise their right of appeal very often on these matters because, in many cases, the appeal will be dealt with administratively by the Home Secretary, as it has been in the past, but on matters of fact there should be this additional safeguard. It would be a real contribution to a restoration of confidence in fair treatment. I recommend this to the Committee.

Mr. Mendelson: In discussing this important aspect of the legislation, I rise to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to take the Committee a little more into the Government's confidence about their plans. We have established that the immediate appeals machinery will be located in Kenya and not in the United Kingdom. We have an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he is moving towards the implementation of the Wilson Committee's recommendations, but we have not yet heard from the Government whether they have made up their mind, at least tentatively, how they wish to implement the Wilson Committee's recommendations.
If the Committee is to make up its mind on the various proposals which are before us, a great deal will depend on what the Government have to say to us on this matter. This is the occasion, before we decide on either of the new Clauses or to support what the Government might want the Committee to do, when we should be taken a step further and told in some detail what, in addition to the immediate appeals machinery which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is setting up, the Government intend to do.

Mr. Hooley: It is, I understand, part of the Government's case for this legislation that in a great number of parts of the world there exist many thousands of people who will be in the same juridical situation as the people in Kenya with whom we are immediately concerned. Therefore, I should have thought that an appeals procedure designed solely for Kenya and located solely there could not be adequate to deal with the cases which might arise—although they might be few in the immediate future, they can arise—in Uganda, Tanganyika, Malawi, Malaysia, Singapore and, possibly, in very small number, in other territories scattered about the globe.
I am not clear how the Government hope to satisfy the position by sending two lawyers to Nairobi and hoping that they will settle the appeals problem for the immediate future.

Mr. Ennals: I welcome the fact that from all sides of the Committee, representatives of all three parties have reiterated the desire to see a proper appeals machinery established.

Sir G. Sinclair: In this country.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman might want it to go beyond this country, and I will explain why.
It is important that there should be some form of appeals against decisions which are taken. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, this does not imply, any more than Sir Roy Wilson in his Report implied, that one assumes that there is a lack of judgment, fairness or compassion on the part of immigration officers or that a great power is held over the future of human beings.
It was for that reason that the right of appeal seems to me to be quite proper. It was because this was of concern that Sir Roy Wilson was appointed Chairman of a Committee, which did a thorough job, spent two years on the task, travelled many parts of the world, saw entry certificate forms, studied the situation at the ports and took evidence from a large number of organisations. The Committee produced a substantial Report which was in the hands of the Government at the end of last summer and the predecessor of my right hon. Friend made his announcement in November that it was the Government's intention to legislate, and my right hon. Friend, in the statement he made yesterday, reiterated that it is the intention of the Government to bring in legislation as soon as it is possible.
5.30 a.m.
I must say to the Committee that this will be complicated legislation. One cannot set up an effective system of appeals quickly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, quite honestly, and one sympathises with him, that he had to bring forward a scheme quickly because he wanted to put down an Amendment, because he felt it was necessary, but he did not have long to do so, and perhaps the proposals which are made are not the best ones. It is not just a matter of appeals at the ports. There is also the question of appeal against refusal of an entry certificate in the country of departure. One hopes that increasingly the point of decision will be not at the port but at the place of embarkation. But those are only two of the situations. There is the third situation, of a person who arrives in this country, it may be on a time limit of

six months, who wants to stay but is told, "You cannot stay". The Wilson Committee said that that situation should be open to appeal, too.
So this does require a very effective and substantial machinery. I am not saying or committing my right hon. Friend to what should be the nature of the machinery. This is something which is now being looked at by my right hon. Friend, and he will come forward with legislation at the right time. The reason why my right hon. Friend established very rapidly appeal machinery to deal with the particular situation in East Africa is that it is a particular situation and a situation dealing with particular people, namely. citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies with a right to come to this country till this Bill becomes law. Therefore, this is a special situation, and I think the Committee should feel very grateful to Sir Derek Hilton and Mr. Trevor Reeve, Q.C., and that men of such distinction should have agreed at very short notice to take on this responsibility. This is an ad hoc system. They can advise my right hon. Friend, and he has said he will take their advice, but this would not be a satisfactory system in perpetuity, which is why it will be necessary to establish an effective system for those coming under the control of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
I should like to have a look at some of the proposals which have been put forward by hon. Gentlemen in Amendment No. 34 and new Clauses 3 and 4 which contemplate appeals, and new Clauses 4 and 5 make other proposals which I will look at in a moment. The Wilson Committee considered whether appeals against immigration officers' decisions should lie to magistrates' courts and recommended strongly against this. I would advise the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at paragraph 105 of the Committee's Report, in which the Committee reached a number of conclusions which I will only very briefly summarise.
The reasons why the Committee felt that the magistrates' court was inappropriate were firstly, that the court's establishment consisted of part-time, unpaid justices of the peace who could not be expected to hold special sittings whenever


appeals were to be heard; secondly, the number of appeals would mean an intolerable burden upon local courts; thirdly, the procedure and rules of evidence would be inappropriate to the situation, which hon. Members will recognise, and which can be expected because of the nature of some of the persons who may be open to refusal at the port. The Committee thought that those procedures would be ineffectual to achieve the purpose. Fourthly, it said that the ordinary courts would find it difficult to apply the special and highly technical code of rules governing immigration control.
Further, it would be hardly consistent with the Government's commitment to introduce a system of immigration appeals on the general lines recommended by the Wilson Committee to apply, even as an interim measure, a system which that Committee expressly rejected.
Turning for a moment to new Clause No. 6, it is relevant that the Wilson Committee did not think it right to limit appeals to questions of fact and law and, except in political cases, to exclude all questions of discretion. Discretion is often the major part of the issue on which an appeal may be made, and the matter is discussed in paragraphs 140 and 141 of the Wilson Committee's Report.
There are other proposals that do not deal with the establishment of legal machinery. New Clauses No. 4 and No. 5 make provision for appeals to the Secretary of State during the period of 90 days following the passage of the Act, in order to leave time for the setting up of a permanent immigrants' appeal tribunal. However, 90 days would not be long enough to bring into force the machinery proposed by the Wilson Committee. But I would say that there is no need to make statutory provision for a right of appeal to a Minister against immigration officers' decisions since, if the making of representations to a Minister can be called an appeal at all, appeals of this kind are being made with great frequency. Through hon. Members and other channels, Home Office Ministers receive cases at the rate of about 2,000 a year. Those cases have to be dealt with the same sense of judgment, though without the skill and experience, that an appeal tribunal would give. I can assure

hon. Members that these cases are scrutinised with the greatest care, and the decisions reached by officials are often reversed in the light of new facts and circumstances brought forward.
Bearing in mind that the Committee wants to see an appeal system established, bearing in mind that my right hon. Friend has committed the Government to the setting up of an effective system, and bearing in mind that it will be based in substance on the re-commendation of Sir Roy Wilson and his expert Committee, I think that hon. Members would agree that it would not be suitable to establish anything less than a genuinely effective machine.
With those assurances on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will feel it unnecessary to press their Amendment.

Mr. Whitaker: Before my hon. Friend sits down, can lie tell us when the Wilson Committee's proposals will be implemented in the way that the Government expect?

Mr. Ennals: All that I can say is that it will be as soon as possible. I have no doubt that those who form the timetable of the House will read the reports of the debates and will be aware of the anxiety. Beyond that, I cannot speak on behalf of the Government.

Mr. David Steel: I do not think that we can accept the reply of the Under-Secretary of State as wholly satisfactory. We all recognise that we cannot bring into effect the recommendations of the Wilson Committee overnight, but we attach such importance to the right of appeal in this country against decisions taken administratively, whether by immigration officers on the spot or by high authority in the Home Office, that there is a widespread feeling that there ought to be a right of appeal to some court.
I can confirm the hon. Gentleman's observation about the 2,000-odd cases a year that are reviewed at the request of Members of Parliament and outside organisations. I would go further and say that in the cases which I have called to the attention of the Home Office probably the majority have been successful. What worries me is that whether or not there is an appeal to


the Minister depends on whether the immigrant who is refused entry has the knowledge or the contacts necessary to get in touch with a Member of Parliament Of some organisation. If he does not it is just too bad. He does not really have a right of appeal.
I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary, who has administered this very well himself in the cases brought to his attention, but for every one brought to his attention there must be many not so brought. There is no real appeal. In this Bill we are extending the range of arbitrary decisions we demand of immigration officers. I am sure they take these decisions fairly, and the whole Committee has paid tribute to them. But we are imposing an extra burden on them under this legislation; therefore, the circumstances in which the Wilson Committee recommended there should be some form of appeal have been further strengthened. If there was a need before this legislation, the need will be still greater after we pass it. It is not enough that we should wait for some indefinite time for the setting up of a proper appeals procedure.
None of the new Clauses is entirely satisfactory to the Government. However, we on these benches at least will demand a Division to register our determination that as a temporary measure there must be some form of appeal to some form of body set up, right away, to safeguard the interests of the people for whom we are legislating.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: The speech of the Under-Secretary was weighty and convincing, and in many respects highly satisfactory, but I hope he will not mind my saying that I did not find it gave any real reason why one of these Amendments should not be accepted. He said that none of the proposals for appeals machinery was terribly good, a fact which those who made them are at once ready to concede. He adduced his evidence; they are out of line with the Wilson Committee recommendations. That is very good evidence. But when my hon. Friend got to the point of saying that it would be inappropriate, even as an interim measure, to have one of these proposals he made a flat assertion, without adducing any evidence for it or argument in support of it.
What is the argument for saying that half a loaf is not as good as no bread?—which is what he was saying. Every member of this Committee will concede that it will be much better than anything here proposed when his new Bill does come along, based on the Wilson Committee's recommendations—

Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend will recall that there were certain proposals which would not require amendment, because they were already being carried out. I was not rejecting all the proposals; I was just saying that it was not necessary to amend this legislation to do so.

Mr. Mikardo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. On this point I have exactly the same opinion as that of the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Liberal benches. I, too, have had experience of the way in which this machinery of appeal of reference to the Minister, has worked, and I share the experience of the hon. Gentleman and others that, where that machinery has been invoked, it has been used by Ministers with the utmost care and sympathy, and often with the best of results. But, as the hon. Gentleman said, the appeals which reach my hon. Friend in that way are not necessarily the appeals of the most deserving. They are the appeals of the most knowledgeable, and the most articulate, and these are not always, and not necessarily, the most deserving. This is why I think that in the interim, until the much better arrangement comes along, we ought to have some arrangement which ensures that anybody may appeal, and anybody's right to appeal is automatic, without his knowing all about the mechanics through which he can get access indirectly to one of Her Majesty's Ministers.
5.45 a.m.
It is quite common for an Act of Parliament to provide for the annulment of certain other statutory provisions. Very often it replaces a less satisfactory interim measure with a better measure. If the Government were to accept any of the proposals for an appeals tribunal, they could do so without departing for one moment from their belief, which we all share, that it will be much better when we have the legislation with the Wilson recommendations in it. They can say


that they will accept this for now, but that this part of the Bill will be annulled when they bring in their new legislation.
My hon. Friend gave no reason why that should not be done, why there should not be an interim measure of this sort. If, in reply to the last intervention by my hon. Friend and Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker), the Under-Secretary had been able to say that we can expect this new Act in March, or even in April, the Committee might take the view that it is not worth the difficulty of setting up any interim arrangement for a matter of a few weeks. But not only was my hon. Friend not able to suggest an early date; he was not able to suggest a date at all. As we know, "as early as possible" is as long as a piece of string.
Sometimes some remarkable things are possible. We are here at 5.45 in the morning because it was found possible to gee through a major piece of legislation, involving some fundamental changes in our constitutional principles. in 48 hours. We therefore know that when the Government want them. miracles are possible. Can my hon. Friend say whether the same degree of urgency and priority is being given in his Department to the legislation on setting up machinery of the kind that we are considering? And if not, why not?

Mr. Ennals: I think my hon. Friend knows that we are committed to bringing forward very shortly a Race Relations Bill, on which a great deal of work is being done, and which, equally, will be a substantial and fundamental Measure to bring before the House. He can hardly expect, within the course of a month, to have two such major Measures, apart from this Bill.

Mr. Mikardo: That reinforces my argument, because, with his characteristic frankness and honesty, my hon. Friend has said that in this case "as soon as possible" is not going to be soon, because another weighty and important factor makes it impossible for as soon as possible to be soon. We therefore know that the Wilson legislation, if I might call it that in shorthand, will be delayed by the preparation of the race relations Bill. It will be delayed by something of which we approve, but, nevertheless, it will be seriously delayed. In that

case, it is asking too much to ask the Committee to say that an interim measure, admittedly not ideal, is worse than no measure at all in the meanwhile.
I do not see why the Government are digging in about this. No great harm can come from any of the proposals, and some good may come from them. They can be annulled when the further legislation comes along. I beg my hon. Friend to think again about this.

Mr. Thorpe: I desire to make only two short points, arising out of the speech of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and the Minister's intervention. We now know that there will, in the unspecified future, be some form of independent appeal tribunal. We accept that. What is therefore very serious, on the reverse side of the coin, is the fact that there will, for some period, be an interregnum, during which time there will be no form of appeal and no reference to an independent tribunal. During that interregnum there will be no form of appeal such as the Wilson Committee suggested.
We shall merely fall back on submissions made to the Home Office by individual Members of Parliament, in those cases where individual Members are contacted.

Mr. Ennals: An interregnum is a period between something and something else. There never has been an appeal system, throughout our history. The Government will introduce an appeal system. Therefore, to say that there will be an interregnum is to say that there will be a continuation of the present situation.

Mr. Thorpe: I am sorry; perhaps I did not make myself clear. There will be an interregnum during which an individual citizen with a United Kingdom passport—not a passport issued by a Colonial Government but a passport issued on behalf of this country and this Government by a High Commissioner in Nairobi—will face rejection when he comes into this country. A new situation will be created if the Bill goes through. For the first time such a person may be refused entry if he is not within the 1,500 quota.
The Minister has said, "We will set up as soon as we can an independent,


impartial form of appeal." I accept that. But until that comes in there will be a period in which there will be no impartial appeal tribunal. I say that if we are going to deprive them in that way there must be some form of impartial appeal. The Home Secretary has come a very long way since the time I questioned him, arising out of my hon. Friend's question, when he made his main statement. He said that it would cost £500,000, and that that was too expensive, and the Treasury would not let him do it, and that anyway he was short of civil servants. He has moved a long way, and that is a good thing—although it might have helped if he had moved initially.
We cannot have a system whereby citizens of this country are excluded from coming into this country when they have no independent right of appeal until the Government are moved to introduce certain tribunals.

Mr. Ennals: The right hon. Gentleman must have heard the statements made by my right hon. Friend and myself, that the Government will bring under control United Kingdom citizens not previously under control, holding United Kingdom passports. At the moment that situation applies only in a certain area of the world, and we are establishing, within a matter of days—during the interregnum that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to—an appeals system, on the advice of two very learned lawyers. That will fill the interregnum, until we are able to set up an appeal system of tribunals roughly on the lines proposed by the Wilson Committee.

Mr. Thorpe: I take the Under-Secretary's point. Certainly two lawyers are going to Nairobi, but is that to be the end of the matter? Is there not to be any recourse in this country? What we are trying to establish is that when a United Kingdom citizen comes to the country with a passport entitling him to come in, if he can be turned away, it does not matter if there are 500 lawyers in Nairobi—there should still be an impartial right of appeal here.
The Under-Secretary has said that there is to be, and all we are asking is that until there is, we should have a temporary system so that we do not turn away our own citizens without an impartial right of appeal. If there is to be

such a system, the logic is to have the temporary safeguard. If, for the first time, we are to deny people the full benefits of citizenship, at least they should have recourse to the courts.

Mr. Bidwell: I add my support to what has been said about the urgent need for an appeal system. Such a machinery was necessary before the Bill appeared and it will be doubly necessary once the Bill is passed, for the Bill will add enormously to the complexities of life for immigration officers.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said that as things stand the Clause would throw an undue burden on magistrates' courts, especially in localities near the ports, and any kind of appeal machinery must be established near the ports as a matter of practicality. But a whole range of difficulties will arise in the implementation of the Bill, involving, for instance, the child joining one parent and the establishment of the necessary proofs in such cases. But anyone contravening the present legislation can be sentenced by a magistrates' court to six months' imprisonment. There is already public disquiet about the urgency attached to the Bill.

Mr. Scott: A number of complications could arise from what one might call the appeal rules. While we welcome the sending of the two lawyers to Kenya, an interim arrangement is needed. I appreciate what has been said about setting up new and possibly cumbersome machinery and the view that even magistrates' courts might not do within a few months. However, will the Under-Secretary be rather more specific instead of referring to months or weeks? At least he did not say, "Weeks rather than months", for we all know how long that is. Could he be more specific and say that it will be before the Summer Recess, for example, with which I would be content? If he sticks to "as soon as possible", we should divide the Committee.

6.0 a.m.

Mr. Mendelson: I support the point of the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott). I can see why the Government, having set up the immediate machinery, might be reluctant to accept these proposals, or even to promise interim machinery for the interregnum. I


would therefore press the alternative. The Under-Secretary said that other members of the Cabinet must also decide about legislation, but my right hon. Friend is a senior member of the Cabinet and is introducing a very difficult Measure. He should promise to press for the speedy introduction of the main machinery following the Wilson Committee's recommendations and mention some period—either the Summer Recess or before—in this connection. This is the alternative which I would support.

Mr. Callaghan: I respond to that invitation but with some trepidation because I am not responsible for the Parliamentary timetable, which is extremely crowded between now and the Summer Recess. The Government's legislative programme is laid out well in advance. We are approaching the Budget and then comes the Finance Bill. It is late in the year now to start legislation. These are the practical difficulties, in view of which my hon. Friend could give no assurance about legislation this Session. But a request has been made in the Committee and I will discuss the matter with my colleagues and stand by their decision and take responsibility for it, although I would not want the Committee to decide on this under any misapprehension that I am promising legislation. I accept that I am now a grey beard and I will pass on the strength of the views expressed.
I would not want a Division on this, because my hon. Friend has given full assurances. The legislation is not yet drafted. The draftsmen have been heavily engaged on technical and complicated legislation on the Race Relations Bill, which hon. Members will recognise as containing many technical difficulties. This work is done by only a handful of people. I am limited by the number of civil servants and immigration officers. I am requested to do all this and find difficulty in getting legislation drafted or the numbers of people I should like for the purpose.

Division No. 77.]
AYES
[6.6 a.m.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Macteod, Rt. Hn. lain


Bessell, Peter
Hunt, John
Maddan, Martin


Body, Richard
Jeger, George (Goole)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pardoe, John


Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter amp; Chatham)
Scott, Nicholas


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lubbock, Eric
Sinclair, Sir George


Higgins, Terence L.
Macdonald, A. H.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

I have been open with the Committee and I hope that hon. Members will accept my hon. Friend's assurance. I will represent strongly the views expressed and I hope that the Committee will, therefore, feel that what has been said about appeals machinery and the temporary system which has been established will, for the time being, meet the situation.

Mr. Ogden: With respect to my right hon. Friend's welcome asurances, some people will be coming here via France, Ireland and other countries, which poses an urgent problem. He said that there were 2,000 appeals a year on all sorts of matters, but they are courtesy appeals and there is nothing in the Bill which requires the Minister to consider them. I have always believed that, in contact with lawyers, one should never ask for justice but always insist on one's rights.
If my right hon. Friend is saying that it is possible for the Minister, by courtesy, to consider appeals made through hon. Members and organisations about the decisions of immigration officers, what is to prevent him from accepting the new Clause, even with slight amendment in another place, since it says:
Citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies holding United Kingdom passports shall, for a period of ninety days after the passing of this Act, have the right to appeal to the Secretary of State for the Home Department against the refusal of admission by an immigration officer, or the conditions of admission imposed by an immigration officer.
That should be written into the Bill, so that all concerned may know their rights. They should know exactly where they stand and not have to wonder to what they might or might not be entitled through the whim of an hon. Member taking up their case or by any other means.

Question put. That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 26, Noes 127.

Tilney, John
Whitaker, Ben



Vickers, Dame Joan
Winnick, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Mr. David Steel and


Wells, John (Maidstone)

Mr. Emlyn Hooson.


NOES


Allen, Scholefield
Fernyhough, E.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Archer, Peter
Forrester, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ginsburg, David
Moyle, Roland


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Goodhart, Philip
Murray, Albert


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Oakes, Gordon


Baxter, William
Gourlay, Harry
Ogden, Eric


Bell, Ronald
Grant-Ferris, R.
O'Malley, Brian


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Oswald, Thomas


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Gurden, Harold
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harper, Joseph
Palmer, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Haseldine, Norman
Pentland, Norman


Blackburn, F.
Hazell, Bert
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Booth, Albert
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Probert, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Rees, Merlyn


Bradley, Tom
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hoy, James
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Brooks, Edwin
Huckfield, Leslie
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hunter, Adam
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Irvine, Sir Arthur
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se amp; Spenb'gh)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Buchan, Norman
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Callaghan, lit. Hn. James
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Small, William


Cant, R. B.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Snow, Julian


Carmichael, Neil
Leadbitter, Ted
Stainton, Keith


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Chapman, Donald
Loughlin, Charles
Swingler, Stephen


Coe, Denis
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Coleman, Donald
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Concannon, J. D.
McBride, Neil
Thornton, Ernest


Dalyell, Tam
McCann, John
Tinn, James


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
MacColl, James
Urwin, T. W.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
McGuire, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mackie, John
Wallace, George


Dobson, Ray
Maclennan, Robert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Doig, Peter
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C)
Whitlock, William


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, J. Kevin
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Eadie, Alex
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Manuel, Archie
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Ellis, John
Mapp, Charles
Yates, Vhstor


English, Michael
Marks, Kenneth



Ennals, David
Mitchell, R. C. (8'th'pton, Test)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Montgomery, Fergus
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Farr, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Eric G. Varley.

New Clause No. 7. (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.)

In the principal Act the following section shall be inserted after section 12:—

'12A. The Secretary of State may make arrangements for financial assistance to persons admitted to the United Kingdom under the principal Act or this Act to enable them to return to their country of origin '.—[Mr. Hogg.]

Brought up and read the First time.

Mr. Hogg: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The proposal in the Clause was originally in our election programme, but the need for it is probably greater now than it was then owing to the situation created by the present Bill. The present Bill arises out of the sense of insecurity of a large number of United Kingdom citizens who, I think, of their own accord

would not have wished to leave their place of origin at all but have been impelled to do so by fears of how they may be treated if they stay or fears that if they do not move quickly they will be forestalled by legislation—the latter of their fears proving correct up to a point. Our feeling about these new immigrants is that, on the assumption that East African countries and other countries where they at present reside behave in a way which all of us would consider proper towards persons who have been in their territories sometimes for generations, that is the best place for them to be.
6.15 a.m.
Other immigrants arrive here under the existing principal Act. It has sometimes been thought that this is an anti-immigrant proposal, but I do not so treat it. They think that there are plenty of


people who would wish to return if they had the means. Certainly I do not. I think there may be people who harbour a delusion that if money were provided for repatriation a great number would return. I do not take that view, but there must be some and, if that be the case, arrangements—which is all that is proposed—to provide financial assistance towards repatriation would be an act which would be both beneficial to this country and an act of generosity to those in need of help. I propose the new Clause taking advantage of the present Bill to do something which we promised in our election pledges.

Mr. Hooson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that one of the dangers of this provision might be that people could have a long holiday here and get financial assistance to go back, unless there is provision for safeguards against that?

Mr. Hogg: All that the new Clause says is that the right hon. Gentleman should make arrangements. The arrangements would have to be satisfactory to prevent abuse. Those who come in under the principal Act have vouchers involving employment which they are to take up, or alternatively, a particular skill. One would think that those who now come in would not be coming for a holiday. Obviously the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is right in saying that the arrangements envisaged in the new Clause would have to have safeguards against abuse.

Mr. Ennals: The Government do not believe that this new Clause is necessary. It is true that some come here as immigrants and wish to return, and many do. Sometimes they come as residents and sometimes they go home and settle because they have come here for only a short time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was right to put the question, "Might it not be to the economic advantage of some who wished to go home if the Government should generously offer help for them to do so?" I am surprised that in this year and at this time in the morning he should suggest that we should be spending money which would not be necessary.
Power exists and is used by the Supplementary Benefits Commission to pay the fare of a Commonwealth immigrant who wishes to return home and who cannot obtain work here. Each case is decided on its merits. The provision is already there. It is a provision which is used by a substantial number of immigrants wishing to return home but who cannot afford it. In fact, an average of a hundred a year do so. There would be no point in our providing additional Government funds to pay to immigrants who could afford to go home. There are other provisions which enable children to be repatriated in certain circumstances, which I need not go into unless I am hard pressed.
As we already have ability to do what the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants, it would be unwise very widely to publicise it, first, because it would be open to abuse, and second, it might look as though this was a sort of "Blacks go home" campaign. We ought not to create any impression that it is really our wish to "Send these fellows home".

Mr. Ogden: I was glad to hear my hon. Friend's detailed explanation. I can put a much simpler reason. In recent days and weeks, I have voted to break my own election pledges, I have voted to break Conservative pledges made in the past, and I am damned if I see any reason why I should now vote to keep Conservative election pledges.

Sir G. Sinclair: I welcome the assurance given by the Under-Secretary of State. I think it right that this provision should be made on the basis which he outlined because, with him, I see some danger that those who adopt a very different attitude towards immigrants coming into this country might pick on a special provision such as is proposed in the Amendment to suggest that this was what a great number of people in this country wanted—that immigrants should go home. This would make the Government's policies in race relations and everything else less than credible.
It is right to put this provision on a supplementary benefit basis so that the whole circumstances of the case can be gone into in a disciplined way. We should not hold out a carrot for anyone who thinks that we should get rid of immigrants. Nevertheless, I am glad that


the present arrangements have been given a bit of extra publicity, because several of my colleagues have told me of cases in which they have had considerable difficulty in gaining access to funds through the source which the Under-Secretary of State mentioned.

Mr. David Steel: If it is any consolation to the Government at this hour, we do not like this proposal either.

Question put and negatived.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered.

Clause 1. (AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, in line 12, after 'or ', insert 'at least '.
I hope that the House will accept this small drafting Amendment. It is, in fact, an Amendment to Amendment No. 5, which we accepted fairly early on in the Committee stage, on which we had that interesting disquisition as to who knew his own grandmother. Having looked at that Amendment as it stood, the draftsman thought that it would be clearer if the House would agree to insert the words "at least" after the first "or" as the words originally stood in Amendment No. 5. If the House would like me to go into a detailed explanation, I am willing to do so. Whether the House would be any wiser than I am when I have read it, I do not know. But I have satisfied myself that it is purely a drafting Amendment. I hope that the House will be willing to accept the Amendment on that basis.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move the manuscript Amendment of which I have given notice, in Clause 2, page 3, line 6, to add a new paragraph (c.) This comes under the Clause which deals with the power to refuse admission.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. I cannot accept the Amendment. The matter has been fully ventilated in Committee.

Mr. Steel: But is this not the Report stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Amendment is not selected on the Report stage.

Mr. Scott: I beg to move the manuscript Amendment standing in my name, which would in effect alter the two-parent Clause to allow the case where the mother alone was resident in this country to count for entry under the terms of the Bill. I talked about this in Committee, although the Amendment was not selected there, so I do not want to talk at great length on this point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This matter was very fully ventilated in Committee. I cannot select the Amendment on Report.

Mr. Tilney: I beg to move the typewritten Amendment in my name. It is rather a long one, and I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House have copies, so that I need not read it out and waste the time of the House. I only wish that I could say that it was in the names of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, which I could have said for the Amendment which was not selected, but which dealt with the same subject of bringing Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands into the same category as the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. What has happened with the Bill is that there are—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but having had an opportunity of considering this manuscript or typewritten Amendment, I cannot select it on Report stage for the same reason as that for which it was not selected in Committee

Mr. Tilney: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have just said that the other two Amendments could not be selected because they had been discussed in full. This Amendment has not been discussed in any way, and I must make a strong protest.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Amendment is substantially identical to an Amendment which was on the Order Paper during the Committee stage and it was not selected for the same reason that it cannot be selected on Report.

Mr. Tilney: With respect, there are many alterations in this new typewritten Amendment. It deals with a number of subsections and with the Third Schedule of the principal Act that were never mentioned in the Amendments you did not select, though I do not know why you did not select them, during the Committee stage.

6.30 a.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Chair does not give reasons why a particular Amendment is not selected. I have now had an opportunity of comparing this with the Amendment that was on the Notice Paper, and, although the aims are different, it raises substantially the same point. I would also remind the hon. Member that he was able to ventilate the matter in the debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. I am afraid that I must adhere to my decision that this Amendment cannot be selected on Report.

Mr. Hooson: On a point of order. So far as I understand your Rulings, you have ruled that certain Amendments which were not debated in Committee cannot be debated now, and you have not accepted those Amendments for Report. Yet your Ruling is that an Amendment which is not selected for Committee stage cannot be debated now because it was not selected. That virtually says that no Amendments can be accepted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are a variety of reasons for not selecting Amendments on Report. One might be that the matter has been ventilated; another might be that it is outside the scope of the Bill, or some other reason may apply. I must adhere to my decision. I cannot accept this Amendment on Report.

Mr. Tilney: May I put a point to you? I deliberately said very little in the debate on Clause stand part. What was the use of saying anything if one could not get anything in the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member had the opportunity of saying as much as he liked during the debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

6.32 a.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I would not like the Bill to pass without making one or two comments. In the course of the long discussion that we have had, the Committee and the House have brought out a great many of the difficulties inherent in the situation, and I hope that the House will feel that I have not attempted to disguise our problem. I said in an intervention earlier that I thought that the difficulty about this matter lay not in the Bill, but in the situation with which we were confronted. This is the substance of the issue.
I should like to thank the House for the manner in which we have conducted the debate, and for the great assistance that hon. Members have given me in helping to clarify some of the issues and ironing out the difficulties. I can undertake to the House that I shall keep a most careful and scrupulous watch on the provisions of the Bill and all the powers that the House is entrusting to me, in order to ensure that they are carried out in the spirit that the House desires.
I do not think that at this time in the morning the House would wish me to rehearse the arguments or the details of the Bill. We have done some very important and useful work. There is widespread agreement on a number of the issues contained in Clauses 2 to 6. The House has made a substantial improvement in our immigration provisions there. As to Clause 1, we have had long debates and I do not wish to add anything, except to say that this is a most intractable situation, and all of us must approach it with a view to getting a settlement that will do as little violence as possible to the desires of those who wish to live in peace and harmony with their neighbours, and to carry on their daily lives, as they have done for years. That is the solution to which we must turn our attention, on the broadest possible basis.

6.34 a.m.

Mr. Tilney: Although there are many parts of this Bill which I welcome I feel that the name of Britain has been devalued. I regret in many ways that the Bill has had to be brought in. Both parties are to some extent to blame for


not having had sufficient foresight to prevent this happening. I hope that the Home Secretary will note that there are other parts of the Commonwealth which now regard themselves as class 3 citizens, such as Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, and will make a move in the near future.

6.35 a.m.

Mr. Chapman: I should not like this occasion to pass too quickly, because we should thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for what he did.
The Times this morning has huge headlines saying, "Concessions wrung from Callaghan". That is a most unjust attitude. In Committee yesterday, or today Parliamentarily speaking, my right hon. Friend was very liberal and forthcoming in giving an assurance about the number of vouchers he will issue and the way in which he will operate the Bill. I did not think that those concessions were wrung from him. He gave them with great spirit and with what we all accept to be a sincere liberal approach to what for him has been a very difficult and most heart-rending task. I assure him on behalf of my hon. Friends that we do not accept the way in which that headline was written or the many other headlines written about him in connection with this Bill. We understand his difficulties and we very much appreciate his personal approach We particularly appreciate what he said in Committee yesterday which lifted a great load from the minds of many of us.

6.37 a.m.

Mr. David Steel: I return to the main point of interest which has concerned me throughout, and that is the situation of the Kenya Asians who did not opt for Kenya citizenship. Our debates have shown that even this category of people is divided into two distinct groups. There are those who will want to leave Kenya of their own free will. Perhaps there are reasons which force them into making that decision, but they are free to leave or stay. For those people, the Home Secretary and the officials in Nairobi will exercise all possible compassion and judgment in deciding which ones should qualify for allocation of the 1,500 vouchers a year.
But there is a second category—those who have to leave Kenya because they are required by the Government to leave Kenya. When we started our proceedings on Second Reading it was this group about which I was most concerned, and it was the fear of this group and of the Kenya Asians that they would fall into this group and would be unable to come here which caused the mood of panic across Kenya and the deplorable scenes at Nairobi Airport and even at Heathrow Airport.
When the social history of this episode of the last few days is written, it will be a tale of the most appalling human misery caused and mistakes made which could have been avoided if only the statements of the Home Secretary, for which we are grateful, about this group of people had been made earlier. I agree with what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) said. I do not think that we should personalise this matter in the way done by the newspapers or analyse how and why the Home Secretary made his statement yesterday. Let us simply recognise that this was a considerable advance from the situation on Second Reading, and we are grateful for it. I am sure that it will go a very long way to reassuring many people in Kenya.
It is my intention and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends to continue our opposition to the Bill in principle and to divide against it on Third Reading. We regard it as a bad Bill, but then there are many Acts which different Members regard from time to time as bad Acts. I have been accused of being associated with bad Acts of Parliament and, therefore, this is nothing new. What is distinctive about the Bill, however—and I speak strongly—is that it is an immoral Bill. I regret to say that it is a Bill which, I think, will be generally welcomed in the country.
For me, the larger political significance of the Bill—I am sorry to have to say it, but it should be said—is that it further devalues the standards of public and political life and panders to the worst possible instincts and the lowest common denominator of feeling, which is a trap into which all of us in political life are inclined to fall from time to time and is something which we must try to avoid at all costs. Here we have not avoided it.
I am particularly proud of the rôle played by the Liberal Party in this matter. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), of all people, paid what was for him a most generous tribute in saying that our stand on the Bill had justified our existence. Some of us who work in a small minority in the House of Commons sometimes feel that our influence here is not as great as we would wish it to be and that we might be better employed doing other work than as a member of a minority in the House of Commons. On an occasion such as the passing of the Bill, however, I believe that we can take pride in the fact that we divided the House of Commons on many occasions. On one occasion, Members from the other parties voted with us and we had a strength of 76. We have opposed the Bill to the last, and we will continue to oppose it in another place tomorrow.

6.42 a.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: It would certainly be churlish for anyone who has attended the discussions on the Bill to attempt to deny in any way the accommodating manner in which both the Home Secretary, the Under-Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General have dealt with the questions which have been raised. Nobody could have any complaint on that score.
I should like to say on Third Reading, however, that I still protest most strongly at Measures of this nature being put through the House of Commons at this speed. I do not believe that we have produced a good Bill by producing it this way. Instances have been provided of the denial of the proper use of the Report stage, when matters might have been raised. I am not criticising the Chair in saying that, but, obviously, there was much less opportunity for both the Government and hon. Members throughout the House of Commons to use the Report stage for the purposes for which it is provided—that is, to look at a Bill again and to be able to change things.
Some of the matters which might have been raised on Report might have dealt with the individual injustices which, I still believe, will arise under Clause 2, apart altogether from Clause 1. We have not dealt properly with some of the ques-

tions about how dependants will be dealt with when they come to this country. We should not deal with such matters in this rushed manner. Therefore, nothing which has occurred has made me feel that we have properly improved the Bill.
On the main issue, despite the concessions or whatever they are called, despite the fact that the Government have spoken in a different tone from the Home Secretary when he first spoke on the Bill, I still think that it is a disgraceful state of affairs. What the House of Commons is doing is disgraceful. To change the meaning of a British passport which we have given to people is a terrible thing to do. If the House of Commons thought that we were doing anything of which we were in any way proud, that would be appalling.
Moreover, I do not believe that what the Government set out to do, and certainly what the right hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) suggested that we had done, has been achieved. Take the headlines in The Guardian today:
Asians forced to leave Kenya can enter Britain.
That is that journal's interpretation of the statement made by the Home Secretary. The other papers have come to much the same conclusion.
The papers are saying that the concessions or the statement made by the Home Secretary has altered the situation very greatly and that the concessions go so far as to mean that the Government will have to agree that all the Asians who may be expelled by the Government of Kenya will have to be brought to this country, queue or no queue. Hon. Members shake their heads. I know that there is still dispute about it. That is one of the difficulties of rushing through a Bill in this way.
Indeed, one of the most significant episodes in the whole of the discussions on this Bill was that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone was very critical of the idea that any concessions had been made, because, he said, we must not make the mistake again of making promises which cannot be carried out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman certainly did not agree with the interpretation given by The Guardian headline which I have just read


out, "Asians forced to leave Kenya can enter Britain". That is not his interpretation of the Bill.
In other words, what we have done and what is inherent in the situation is this: we have taken all the odium of trying to deprive people of their rights in the passport and discovered that we cannot do it. We cannot do it. In fact, an Amendment from this side proved it. The Government did not say that this was a concession, or whatever we like to call it. They have been forced from one situation to another and have been forced back to the situation that they cannot tear up people's passports. That is what has really happened. That is the interpretation which is given by the newspapers and which will be given in Kenya.
We shall leave this Bill in an extremely confused state of affairs, in which the interpretation which is placed upon it by the Opposition Front Bench is different from the interpretation which is placed upon it by the Government Front Bench. I do not mind divisions between the two Front Benches in the normal way, but when they are over the interpretation of what is meant by a Bill which deals with the livelihood and fears of people, and with their liberties and individual rights, that is another matter, and it is bad.
People do not know what their rights are under the Bill. The provisions of a Bill like this should be clear so that everyone can understand them, so that everyone having a passport will know what right it gives. It is not only a question of devaluing the passport. We have removed the meaning from the passport, and the people who hold passports now in Kenya do not know what rights they entitle them to. That is the situation. That is not the way for the House to legislate.
That is not to say the House wanted this position. I am sure it did not. Only a few people wanted to get through this Measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), the original author of this Bill, never voted for a Bill about which it could be said at the end by The Guardian in a headline, "Asians forced to leave Kenya can enter Britain." That is not what he voted for, is it? That is not what an hon. Member opposite for Birmingham voted for. He

has been campaigning for greater controls for years.
So we are faced, after these two days, with a most serious situation, one which I believe the House of Commons will regret. It derives from the fact that the House has had to deal with the utmost speed with a matter of the utmost delicacy. So, by our failure to use our own procedures properly, we shall be inflicting serious injustice on large numbers of individual people who look to us for protection. What this House of Commons has done in the final result is to deny them that protection. It is the most melancholy day in the history of the House of Commons.

6.48 a.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: Having abstained from voting on Second Reading of the Bill I am glad to have a very brief chance of voicing my remaining objections on Third Reading. I recognise as long overdue the need for much stricter control of the immigrants most of whom are coloured immigrants. In so far as the Bill tightens up various controls such as the control over children coming here to work and not really to join their parents, in so far as it means health checks, badly needed for some time, and in so far as it closes what I simply call the 24-hours loophole in the law, I welcome the Bill. But I join with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in his protest that we have had too little time for careful consideration of it, and, as a result, it has been rushed and its meaning in some important respects is not clear. That is thoroughly bad.
I have three main objections, all arising out of Clause 1. One is a fundamental objection, and the other two are subsidiary, though important. Fundamentally, I object strongly to the breaking of our pledge, implicit in agreeing to give British passports and thus citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies to people in East Africa, mainly Asians in Kenya, who opted for them. We have broken our promise, and there is no getting away from that. It was a promise given with our eyes wide open because of the obvious risk of racial tension between Africans and Asians in East Africa. Anyone who knows Kenya knows that there has been


no love lost between African and Asian right through this century.
Unhappily, the tension has arisen and the safeguard of unrestricted right of entry into this country is needed urgently. This is the very moment that the Government choose to limit that right to 1,500 and to abolish it for many more. These people who may not be able to come here, though I hope that they will, could easily become stateless refugees, and they will present very difficult problems.
I am very disappointed at the Home Secretary's refusal to soften the impact of Clause 1 by accepting some of the sensible suggestions made when we debated various Amendments to it. He could have done this quite easily by removing my second objection, still valid, and that is his fixing the annual quota at the very low figure of 1,500, plus dependants. Though he qualified this with his rather loosely worded assurances that he would raise the figure, presumably it would be at the expense of other Commonwealth immigrants if need be.
I appeal to the Government to give further thought to honouring our undoubted obligations to Asians in Kenya and the other two countries in East Africa, even if we have to ask some of them to wait two or three years, and even by making would-be immigrants from other Commonwealth countries wait longer.
This is closely tied up with my third objection, which is no longer entirely valid, and it is the incomprehensible refusal of the Home Secretary originally to set up an appeal machinery. I welcome the fact that he has had a change of heart, though still I wonder whether the appeal machinery is adequate. He spoke at one stage of a small team of lawyers going to Kenya. A team cannot be much smaller than two, and I cannot help feeling that these two distinguished lawyers may find themselves very overworked. In addition, I believe that some appeal machinery in this country will be necessary.
To sum up, I am not happy about the Bill for various reasons. First, I consider that Clause 1 is highly objectionable and that the need for it is still not really proved. Secondly, the Bill devalues the British passport and, worse still, it de

values Britain's word. It may well lead to a gigantic legal and administrative muddle, a great deal more complicated than many hon. Members may have realised.
Lastly, it is nearly certain that it will cause suffering and unhappiness to many people who expected and deserved better treatment.

6.55 a.m.

Mr. Hogg: I want to say only a very few words on Third Reading, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Liberal benches took up with glee the suggestion that came from my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) to the effect that the Liberal Party would justify its existence by dividing on Third Reading. I do not want to derogate from that tribute, except to point out that it is the Motion which stands in the names of myself and my hon. Friends which enables us to divide. Perhaps this is not justified—I do not want to add to their disappointment.
However, I am not sure I should not say one or two things in view of the remarks that have fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish). To the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale I would say that I never put any interpretation on what the Home Secretary said during the debates. It was precisely because I put no interpretation on it at all that I said what I did earlier in the night. But I hope that he has not said something which he will not be able to perform—that he has not fallen into the same trap again.
I have supported this Bill—it was a painful decision, I think, for all of us, whichever side we took—simply because I do not believe it is an honourable thing to go on saying that one is going to do something, then, when the moment comes, not to do it. If we had not legislated now, we should have caused a great deal more pain to a very large number of people who, from time to time, put trust on their right of admission to this country, then find all too late it is not possible to find entrance here. Although to some extent I shall be going over ground traversed before, I would say that I have been, I hope, consistent


throughout this discussion. I have fully agreed it was a most distasteful thing to devalue the British passport, but that was because the British passport had carried some guarantee of entrance to this country.
I do not think there was an express pledge, as has been repeatedly asserted against my right hon. Friend. I do not think there has ever been any evidence of that.
To devalue the British passport is a most distasteful thing, but it is most important that we should get this right: we did the same thing before, in 1962. There is no getting away from it. Before 1962 a British passport, issued for instance to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies in Australia by the High Commissioner for Australia, carried with it exactly the same right of free entrance that we are here taking away from another group. We did it then, in good faith, and it was accepted very shortly after we had done it by the very people who had opposed us on that Bill. When they came into power they found they had no other course than to pursue the Bill we had carried through this Parliament.
I did not like doing this, any more than the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary likes doing it. I did not like it then, and I do not like it now. But I am perfectly sure that if we had not done it, we should be faced with a worse, and more dishonourable, situation now. I simply do not believe that it is honest to go on failing to face the situation, as we should have done if we had not legislated quickly at this time. I think that with the passage of time, even if we are held up to ransom by other Powers, the Home Secretary will be justified in what he has done, and those who have supported him, with considerable dislike, will be proved to have done the right thing. I would not have done it if I did not believe that it was the right thing.
I have listened to all the alternatives which have been suggested to this course of action. They have been put forward by my hon. Friends, from the Liberal bench, and from the benches opposite. I respect, though I do not agree with, that which says that we should not have legislated at all, but those which try to put forward some half-measure, or some other way of dealing with the

situation, like the stopping of other immigration, or taking it away from those with dual nationality, but not from the Kenyan Asians, or taking it away from the Kenyan Asians who have not applied for British passports, but leaving it with those who have, are infinitely more dishonourable than anything that we have been asked to do in the Bill.

Mr. Thorpe: Nonsense.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman says "Nonsense". I had not intended to detain the House, but I should now like to justify what I have said. One suggestion was that we should stop all other immigration. I wonder whether this is any more honourable. Nobody with any sense of the history of this matter could believe that. We devalued the British passport to a certain limited extent in 1962. Those who come into this country under the voucher system under the existing legislation, those whom the right hon. Gentleman, or his hon. Friend, would like to keep out altogether, rely on the 1962 Act, they rely on the British word, and now it is suggested as an alternative to what we are doing in the Bill we should break our word about that.

Mr. Thorpe: I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that under the 1962 Act, whatever we may think of it, there is a certain discretion in the Government about how many A or B vouchers they issue. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman contending that there is no difference between saying to a Pakistani who lives in Pakistan. who has Pakistani citizenship, "I am sorry, but we cannot let you in because your place must go to a Pakistani who lives in Kenya, who has a British passport, who has no other citizenship, and is compelled to leave Kenya for racial reasons", and what we are doing here? Is he saying that that is not a logical formula?

Mr. Hogg: I was saying that the formula which I was seeking to describe was nonsense. If the right hon. Gentleman was really applying his mind to the matter, he would realise that the suggestion that we should stop immigration from the West Indies, from Australia, from India, from Pakistan, in fact from the whole Commonwealth, in direct contravention of the faith which


has been placed in our word, simply as an alternative to this Bill, has no morality in it at all. The suggestion that we should allow in those who happened to apply for a passport, and not allow in those who did not, seems to me to have no morality in it, either. The unrestricted right of entry to this country depends, not on the possession of a passport, but on the entitlement to a passport. There may be one reason or another for applying for a passport—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on Third Reading. We cannot discuss Amendments or alternatives.

Mr. Hogg: The Bill which we are asked to pass has been described as immoral. My answer is that in every case that we have heard during these protracted debates, the various reasons for rejecting the Bill have been infinitely more immoral than what we are doing. That is my conviction. If I have strayed in replying to the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) in demolishing his suggestion that what I was saying was nonsense I can only apologise to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a grave and most disagreeable decision. I do not hesitate for a moment to say that there is no third course open to the House; it is a question either of allowing unrestricted entry to remain, not only for the Kenyan Asians but for those who have not yet asked us for unrestricted entry—1 million or more—or legislating in this way. I have no doubt that between the two alternatives that I have posed—the continuance of unrestricted entry and this Bill—this Bill is, disagreeably but necessarily, the only course for this country to pursue.

7.6 a.m.

Mr. John Fraser: We have all regarded the Bill with some misgiving. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), in his opening speech yesterday, compared the situation with that of a bank which was unable to pay its creditors. I submit that the proper comparison is with an insurance company which has issued a policy and has not thought very carefully about the way in which it has done so but, rather like a Lloyds broker, pays up on the policy no matter how unpleasant or disastrous it is at the time.
I agree that it was proper to deal with people who have citizenship in other countries, but the real nub of the issue concerns the people who have an insurance policy in a British passport and who are Asians in Kenya. I am proud that the House of Commons should have aired this matter for so long and in such a proper manner. Both Front Benches, and other hon. Members on both sides, have given the right impression to the country, showing that our concern was very much with the honouring of our obligations to citizens of this country who were relying upon British passports.
Great good has been done in terms of race relations in this country by our showing that we have faced so carefully a question of honour and our capability of fulfilling our promise. The many undertakings and statements made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and by the Under-Secretary of State have gone a long way towards satisfying the misgivings which many people must have felt.
Those who have clamoured for the passing of this kind of Measure—in particular, the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who lives next to my constituency and who once represented it—owe a heavy responsibility in terms of race relations, because the picture that they have presented to the country shows that they put prejudice above honour. I hope that when we have finished with the Bill the right hon. Member for Streatham and others who have taken a similar line will think a great deal about the future and will try to atone for the damage that they have done to race relations by the picture which they have presented of citizens who have been trying to live together in peace and harmony.

7.9 a.m.

Mr. Martin Maddan: The Bill came to the House as a hastily-conceived Measure, and it leaves it as a hastily-conceived and hastily-discussed Measure. It bears the hallmarks of that. It came as an ill-conceived Measure—certainly hastily put together—and not the fruit of effective negotiations with the Government of East Africa, or of effective consultation with the Governments of India and Pakistan or the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for


Streatham (Mr. Sandys) said, without any thought of the interaction of this Measure with the Mauritius Independence Bill. It has been rushed through the House. One stage, Report stage, was completely truncated, with the Home Secretary allowed by the Chair to move only one drafting Amendment. That is most regrettable for a Bill of this importance. The proceedings on the Bill have been in sharp and stark contrast to those on the original 1962 legislation, which, whatever else may be said about it, was certainly conceived with care and discussed with care. It is with regret that I see the Bill now about to leave the House.
It has been said that it has been improved by the assurances given during our debates by the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary. Our proceedings have been riddled with assurances, but those assurances have not clarified or strengthened the Bill. They rely on the right hon. Gentleman and his successors and on administrative action in future, and practically all the objections levelled against the Bill when it originally came to the House remain as it now leaves us.

7.12 a.m.

Miss Lestor: I do not want to make a frustrated Second Reading speech, but I want to make one or two comments on what has been said during this very long and, to me, rather painful debate.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) made a statement which he can never prove. He said that we had to have the Bill, because race relations in this country would get worse without it. That has been said before and that is why we have legislated before. According to the P.E.P. Report on which we are to base future race relations legislation, it is because race relations have been getting worse in this country that we ought now to legislate to outlaw discrimination.
Several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) have said that it is easy for those without immigrants in their communities or constituencies to be as white as the driven snow on this issue. Have they ever stopped to think why some of us who have immigrants in our communities take the line which we

follow and why we oppose the Bill? We do so because we believe, and our experience has shown, that this sort of approach does not enhance race relations. It is my conviction that the organisations which we set up to deal with race relations problems are in a very sad state. I cannot prove my assertions any more than other hon. Members can prove theirs, but many of us believe that, quite apart from the constitutional issues, the Bill will not contribute anything to the quality of race relations. On the contrary, it will deal them a severe blow.
Almost every hon. Member who has spoken when using the word "immigrant" has thought of "colour", and "immigrant" has become synonymous with "coloured". Last year, 24,500 aliens, most of them white, settled in this country. We have standards for aliens which are different from those for coloured immigrants. Next time we discuss immigrants we should discuss white immigrants and coloured immigrants. Until we get our immigration on the same basis and discuss immigration Bills without meaning colour Bills, we will yield to the clamour of those who speak with a racialist tongue. The Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary are not racialists. We all say that we are not, yet we pass legislation which is what those who speak with racialist tongues want us to pass. Until we fight on the grounds of equality, we shall never further our race relations.

7.15 a.m.

Mr. Winnick: I was unhappy about the Bill from the start and I am still unhappy, because it is thoroughly bad and unjustified. I believe that the Government are wrong, but I cannot forget the irresponsible racialist campaign which forced them to act. Those right hon. and hon. Members who played their part in that campaign will ultimately, I believe, find their position shameful and even humiliating. No one can feel proud of the Bill, because it deals basically with non-whites. There would have been no campaign or Bill if they had been white. This is why we cannot feel proud of being Members of Parliament today.
The majority of people believe that a Bill dealing with Asians is necessary. It may be. I have no illusions that my stand is other than a minority one, but if those with United Kingdom passports come here without vouchers I believe


that public opinion will not allow them to be turned away. Although public opinion sometimes forces irresponsible racialist campaigns, it can also show itself in a better light. Despite the Bill, if people come from Kenya, public opinion will force the Government to let them in an emergency. What worries me is the fear of insecurity of many of these people who do not understand how public opinion can change.

Division No. 78.]
AYES
[7.20 a.m.


Allen, Scholefield
Grant, Anthony
Oswald, Thomas


Anderson, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n amp; M'd'n)
Gurden, Harold
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Harper, Joseph
Palmer, Arthur


Bacon Rt. Hn. Alice
Haseldine, Norman
Pentland, Norman


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Baker, W. H. K.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Price, William (Rugby)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Probert, Arthur


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hoy, James
Pym, Francis


Berry, Hn, Anthony
Huckfield, Leslie
Rees, Merlyn


Bishop, E. S.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, Adam
Robinson,Rt.Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Body, Richard
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Bradley, Tom
Jackson, Colin (B'h so amp; Spenb'gh
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Royle, Anthony


Brooks, Edwin
Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh amp; Whitby)


Buchan, Norman
Kitson, Timothy
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton.N.E.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Campbell, Gordon
Leadbitter, Ted
Small, William


Cant, R. B.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Snow, Julian


Carmichael, Neil
Loughlin, Charles
Stainton, Keith


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Chapman, Donald
McBride, Neil
Swingler, Stephen


Coe, Denis
McCann, John
Taverne, Dick


Coleman, Donald
MacColl, James
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Concannon, J. D.
McGuire, Michael
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dalyell, Tam
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Tinn, James


Davies, Dr. Ernest (stretford)
Mackie, John
Urwin, T. W.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Maclennan, Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne valley)


Dobson, Ray
Macpherson, Malcolm
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Doig, Peter
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wallace, George


Dunnett, Jack
Manuel, Archie
Weatherill, Bernard


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mapp, Charles
Webster, David


Eadie, Alex
Marks, Kenneth
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, William (Merionoth)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshaiton)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Whitlock, William


Elliott,R.W.[N'c'tleupon-Tyne,N.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Willams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


English, Michael
More, Jasper
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ennals, David
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Eyre, Reginald
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Woodbum, Rt. Hn. A.


Farr, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Yates, Victor


Fernyhough, E.
Murray, Albert



Forrester, John
Oakes, Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ginsburg, David
Ogden, Eric
Mr. loan L. Evans and


Goodhart. Philip
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Gourlay, Harry
Osbom, John (Haliam)





NOES


Beamish, col. Sir Tufton
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter amp; Chatham)


Bessell, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Crawshaw, Richard
Hooley, Frank
Lubbock, Eric


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Macdonald, A. H.


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Lain


Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)
Hunt, John
Maddan, Martin


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Judd, Frank
Mikardo, Ian

Not only as an hon. Member, but as a Socialist, I believe that we should be firm on principle in all controversial matters and not panic or run away and that thus we will not only be right but will ultimately win the respect of our fellow countrymen.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 31.

Nott, John
Victers, Dame John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Scott, Nicholas
Whitaker, Ben
Dr. M. P. Winstanley and


Sinclair, Sir George
Winnick, David
Mr. David Steel


Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

EDUCATION BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1. (CHANGES IN CHARACTER, SIZE OR SITUATION OF SCHOOLS.)

7.26 a.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 34, at end insert:
(11) A significant change in the character of the non-selective school shall be deemed to occur if—

(a) a county secondary school at present accepts all children from an area, without reference to their ability or aptitude, and
(b) the local education authority concerned proposes to permit any children from the area of that non-selective school to enter any other county school provided or maintained by them, which does admit children by reference to their ability or aptitude.
I do not intend to keep the House very long at this hour, but I feel that I must do what I can to give my right hon. Friend the opportunity to defend existing comprehensive schools. I shall not repeat all the arguments I advanced on Second Reading, but my right hon. Friend will know that this Amendment arises as a result of the proposals of the Wolverhampton Education Committee to change the character of two comprehensive schools that now come within its area as a result of local government boundary reviews.
The Bill lays down what shall be regarded as changes in the character of a school. It mentions schools that begin or cease to provide education.
… for pupils above or below a particular age, for boys as well as for girls, or for girls as well as for boys, or from the making or alteration of arrangements for the admission of pupils by reference to ability or aptitude….
The proposals to which I wish to draw attention change the intake based on ability and aptitude and on parental choice, and it is my submission and that of the staffs of the school and of

the parents who are connected with the parent-teacher association that if parental choice can operate it will mean that children of the highest I.Q. range will be creamed off from the school, and separatism, which has been eliminated in the area, will be introduced, encouraged and prolonged. This will prejudice the whole development of comprehensive education in the area. It will render the viability of the sixth form virtually impossible. If a large number of parents opt out of the scheme, the school will become a glorified secondary modern school and this will have serious repercussions on the teaching staff. Teachers engaged to teach in a comprehensive school will seek other occupations where their interest and talents for comprehensive education will be better used. Parents who sent their children to that school because they wanted them to have comprehensive education, will have been let down and betrayed because a fully comprehensive system will no longer be supplied.
7.30 a.m.
The creaming off of even a small number of brighter children, which will depend on the places available in existing grammar schools, will affect the academic courses in the school and the kind of sixth form courses which can be provided. This will cause worry for parents, staff and children. The proposals, which will have the effect of allowing brighter children to go to existing grammar schools without permitting a compensating intake into the area to give freedom of choice to parents in other parts of Wolverhampton to send their children to comprehensive schools, will represent a serious change in the character of the schools.
I therefore move this Amendment and hope that my right hon. Friend will accept it in the spirit in which it is moved.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) certainly has a constituency problem here which she has raised with


my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me on several occasions. As she has described, this is an area which was in the Staffordshire City Council area, but which through local government changes has been transferred to Wolverhampton, where the children went to a comprehensive school. The trouble arose because now Wolverhampton education authority is giving the children in those areas the option of going to grammar schools in the non-reorganised part of the borough.
The Secretary of State and I have told my hon. Friend that we are sorry this step has been taken by Wolverhampton authority and we regard it as a retrograde step. My hon. Friend has moved this Amendment to deal with the case in Wolverhampton which is rather unusual. She attempted to move a similar Amendment in Committee. She was not in order, but I managed to reply to her out-of-order speech. This case is unusual in that there has been no selection in this area and now there is to be selection for schools in Wolverhampton. Although it is unusual in that respect, it is not unusual for there to be a choice of secondary schools within a local authority area. Several local authorities which are moving towards a genuine non-selective system of comprehensive education have, as an interim measure, a choice between a comprehensive school and a grammar school. This is only a temporary measure in these areas, and it is one which I am always glad to se disappear. It should be only temporary.
Wolverhampton has not yet submitted a scheme for comprehensive education. It is one of the few local authorities in the country which have not yet done so. So it cannot be said that this is at present an interim measure leading to full comprehensive education within the borough, as it is in the other areas which I have mentioned.
The Amendment would, however, have a restricting effect in many areas outside Wolverhampton. There would have to be a rigid catchment area, and no child could be allowed outside it to any school with selection of any kind. I am told that this did not altogether exist under the Staffordshire authority, where there was a choice of other schools

on denominational or family grounds. Sometimes, too, numbers in a school mean variations in catchment areas and children having to go out of one catchment into another.
There is a defect in the Amendment because of the definition in the Bill of the meaning of change of character. The Amendment would have it that there was a significant change in the character of a comprehensive school if parents living within its catchment area were allowed to choose a selective school. This is inconsistent with the definition of what a significant change in the character of a school means. It does not mean a significant change of character in the ordinary meaning of the word "character". Schedule 1, paragraph 5(c) lays down that there is a significant change in the character of a school if there is a substantial change in its function.
The function of a comprehensive school is to provide a full range of secondary education for pupils on a non-selective basis. The effect on the character of the school in a more general sense would be marginal, if we look at it in that way; but I do not think that my hon. Friend could argue that this change would amount to a change in the function of the school, because the school would still provide for all ability ranges.
As I say, the Amendment would have a restrictive effect in many areas. It would mean that there would have to be a rigid catchment area. Roman Catholic parents, for example, would be prohibited from sending their children outside the catchment area to a school in Wolverhampton if that school happened to be a grammar school based on selection.
I sympathise with what my hon. Friend is trying to do. I am sorry that we cannot accept the Amendment. I am told—I have met a deputation, as she knows—that the parents in the area object strongly to the proposal of Wolverhampton. If that is so, the matter is in their own hands. If parents object to Wolverhampton saying to them, "If you wish, your child may sit for some sort of test to go to a grammar school in Wolverhampton", they will not avail themselves of the opportunity. To that extent the parents have the matter in their own hands.
Wolverhampton has not yet submitted a scheme to us. It is one of the very few areas which has not done so. As the years go by such areas will find that they have a totally different system of education from the rest of the country, unless something is done about it. I hope that we shall soon get a scheme from Wolverhampton which will end selection in the whole of the borough. If that happens, there will be no difficulties. I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend and I regard this as a retrograde step by Wolverhampton. I hope that the parents will still opt for their children to go to the comprehensive schools and that only a trickle will avail themselves of the opportunity of sending them to the grammar schools within the old Wolverhampton area.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

TRAFFIC SIGNS (NORTH-EAST HAMPSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McCann.]

7.43 a.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the question of the new signposting in North-East Hampshire. Many of my constituents have written to me about it.
I propose only to deal with the signposting on non-trunk roads. The signs have been put up following the Report of the Worboys Committee, which was appointed in December, 1961, and reported on 18th April, 1963. Some time last year it was decided that an experiment in the placing of the signs should be carried out in North-East Hampshire as a pilot scheme. In particular, this was done in the attractive country around Hartley Wintney. The placing of the signs has been done in accordance with the recommendations of the Report. But unfortunately due attention has not been paid to the numerous variations of roads and houses jutting on to them, and this

does not lend itself to the complete harmony which is one of the aims of the Report's recommendations.
For example, attractive almshouses have been blocked by a large sign which is hardly necessary to be so large and people some distance away down the road are prevented from seeing them. Elsewhere, two rather lovely old cottages are to a large extent hidden by another large sign. In front of a scheduled historic building there are signs 9 to 10 feet high, interfering with the visual pleasure that results from looking at a rather lovely old house.
The next problem is the very considerable numbers of signs on each stretch of road, for example, from Fleet to Pye-stock. In a distance of 2½ miles there are seven signs, all indicating Pyestock. It should be pointed out that these signs are fixed on metal poles, and it is desirable to mention the number of poles within a comparatively short area. In the village of Mattingley there are 22 poles within 100 yards. In Phoenix Green, near to Hartley Wintney, there are 14 poles within 50 yards, and at Hartley Wintney there are 56 poles in the village. To be fair those poles are partially on the trunk road A.30. There is a danger in these poles, in that they are sometimes placed on unlighted footpaths, and there have been pedestrians walking into the poles at night. There are many other cases of that type of thing, indicating a lack of appreciation of the difficulties for the individual in the district.
A most amusing thing is a sign saying "Crookham Village ½ mile "and five feet nearer Crookham there is another sign saying" Crookham Village". That is making assurance doubly sure, even if the distance is inaccurate. I do not blame the county or local authorities, because they are carrying out the Worboys Committee's recommendations, which do not have regard mainly to the nature of the surrounding country, but mostly to the roads. It would be unfair and unreasonable to blame the local authorities.
Let me give an example of the sort of thing that happens. At a "T" junction with a minor road there was a signpost, clearly showing the name of the hamlet, down the smaller road. On the smaller road two new signs have been erected, one either side, a foot down


the road both bearing the same name, but not visible to the oncoming motorist in the same way as the ordinary wooden simple sign was, which stuck out clearly. These signs are expensive. In one or two cases a sign saying "Give way" is put up at the end of a small road with a dozen houses in the place of the usual double white line on the road which is sufficient for warning the motorist that he is coming to the main road.
I understand that the local planning authorities have not been approached to give authority for the erection of signs, but consideration should be given to whether they should be taken into consultation before the signs are erected.
That brings me to the point of cost, which is very serious, because in the small area of Hampshire about which I have been talking the cost of signposting with metal poles and on the lines I have indicated is £ 166,000, which comes to a very considerable figure taking the country as a whole. I should indicate the cost of these signs. The large informative sign is between £ 200 and £ 500. The small informative sign, including posts and lighting, is £ 100 to £ 300. A flag sign at a junction is £ 15 to £ 150. A warning sign is £ 28 to £ 50. I doubt whether we can afford this expenditure in the sense that it is not in a number of cases necessary over the whole country.
It is to be hoped that the cuts amounting to 22 per cent. of the programme of county road authorities include cuts referring to the Worboys experiment. The cuts should certainly include substantial cuts the work of signposting, on the lines of those recommendations.
My requests to the Parliamentary Secretary are these. Can signs be inspected at an early date so that some of the points I have raised may be dealt with? Can unsatisfactory signs be adjusted or removed? Can local planning authorities be consulted? In view of the large sums involved, can this programme be postponed until the financial condition of the country is much better?

7.53 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I am glad that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington)

has raised this matter, although I should have wished that it had been raised considerably earlier when perhaps we would all have been a bit fresher. A number of comments have been made to my Department and to the Press about the new traffic signs. Not all of them are in support of the signs, but many of them are. This debate gives me an opportunity to set the record straight.
I should like to go into the general background of traffic signs. As the hon. Gentleman said, the new signs have come about as a direct result of the deliberations of the Worboys Committee set up in 1961 by the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). Its Report was published in 1963. The Committee was set up to study traffic signs generally.
There were many complaints about the old traffic signs and the Report made a number of recommendations concerning design, colour, letter heights, and so on, and said that our system of signs should be brought into line with European signs. It was important that there should be co-ordination between our signs and those of Europe, not only because of our closer links with the Continent but because more and more people from this country go on holiday across the Channel with their cars and, in addition, we are getting an increasing number of foreign visitors. We felt that standardisation in the best way possible had become an urgent matter.
The Committee was fully aware that to increase the numbers and conspicuousness of our traffic signs in the interests of safety of road users might involve some loss of amenity and, therefore, paid particular attention to this aspect when considering the signs. The Committee felt it necessary to ensure that road users got the message of what the signs were trying to convey yet, at the same time, that the message did not intrude more than was absolutely necessary.
In justice to Sir Walter Worboys and his colleagues, I must emphasise that they exercised the greatest care in this respect. Mr. Jock Kinnear, an industrial designer, and others worked on the signs and put in a great deal of effort. Many examples of signs were drawn up for examination and study. Of the quality of the signs and the amount of effort


that was put into the work, it is interesting to note that uniquely a Duke of Edinburgh Award for industrial design was mace for the signs. The highest accolade in industrial design was thus accorded to these signs from the purely aesthetic point of view as individual signs, quite apart from the impact which they may have on any locality.
The Worboys Report was generally accepted by the right hon. Member for Wallasey and the present Traffic Signs Regulations were issued. To ensure uniformity, highway authorities need much advice on the correct size and use of signs in certain circumstances, and to support the Regulations a traffic signs manual has been issued. I would, I believe, carry the hon. Member with me in saying that there had to be general uniformity throughout the country in the application an positioning of signs and certain standards towards achieving that uniformity so that the motorist would be familiar with the positioning of signs and their meaning when he saw them in position.
The traffic signs manual is the product of painstaking work on the part of the staff of the Department, who are highly skilled at traffic engineering techniques and the employment of traffic signs. They are real experts in the field. Those who have compiled the manual have concerned themselves with the problem of amenity as well as road safety, in the same way as did the Worboys Committee.
I am glad to say that they are not solely concerned with road safety and with helping motorists. They do not wart to despoil the countryside any more than those who complain at the appearance of the signs. They are, however, concerned, as is my right hon. Friend the Minister, that the safety of all road users shall be protected as far as their skills allow.
Obviously, to convert all our traffic signing to what, I confidently assert, is an extremely efficient system is a very long process. It is also—here I agree with the hon. Gentleman—an extremely expensive process. The hon. Gentleman raised the question of cost and perhaps I could deal with that now. No doubt these signs are costly, because they are meant to endure, and because they are made to

be seen in a way totally different from the older signs with which we were familiar, because motor cars go much faster, and there are more of them on the road and there tends to be less time for the motorist to examine things, and the road signs must make an immediate impact, so they must be made of material which is more expensive. Many must be illuminated because of their position. It is a costly business to erect these signs. This is one of the reasons why the programme as a whole has perhaps not been as fast as we would have liked, because of the problem of finance, both for the Ministry and for the local highway authorities.
So a timetable was set. All the regulatory signs had to be completed by the end of last year, and shortly my right hon. Friend hopes to make regulations fixing the dates by which all the permanent signs on primary routes should be completed. In the meantime—and this is where the area of North-East Hampshire to which the hon. Member referred comes into it—it was thought that it would be useful for the highway authorities all over the country to see a part of the country where all the signs were completed. We selected North-East Hampshire as the demonstration area.
For various reasons this task has taken longer than we anticipated, but I should like to say how grateful we are to Hampshire County Council and Farnborough and Fleet Urban District Councils for their very helpful co-operation. Those local authorities had to exert a considerable effort in this task.
Now that this first area is complete, we are being assailed on all sides with accusations that there are too many signs, that they are too big, that they are ruining the amenity of the area. Without being too dogmatic about it, I find this difficult to accept. Members of the Ministry of Transport have worked with the local authorities on this and have inspected the results, and the signs have been erected in accordance with the traffic signs manual. The work which has been done in this area, which has been well served, is excellent. Other local authorities will have to complete their work in the next few years.
But we would be the first to admit that there are lessons to be learned from the part already signposted. Now that


we can see the area with the signs complete it is right that we should look at it as a whole to see whether we can make any changes. There are a number of things which we believe could be reviewed. For example, we propose to examine again the criteria of the size of the signs in relation to actual road speeds rather than the criteria of the road. We particularly propose to review the need for advance local direction signs, the need for either more or less advanced local direction signs, and there are a number of other things.

Sir E. Errington: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether he is prepared to consult the local people in some form or another, because I think the feeling which has caused a great deal of the trouble has been that this was done with no discussion other than with the county council?

Mr. Carmichael: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the agent of the Ministry in all these cases is the county council, and the Ministry feels that there is an obligation, when it is approaching things like this, that it should be through the county council that any consultations should take place. Without becoming too involved, perhaps I could say that I certainly take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am aware of the point he is raising, and I will certainly pass it on.
As I was saying, we have digested a number of complaints as they have come in. We will examine the detailed points raised by the hon. Gentleman in the debate and give them serious study. There is nothing cut and dried, nor are our minds made up completely, although we are convinced that the basic principle is correct and we would not depart from the fundamental principles in the area that has been signposted.
In the general context of the re-signing of the whole of Britain which will take place over the next 10 years, we think that the residents of North-East Hampshire should feel gratified, just as they did when theirs was one of the first areas

in the country to be issued with free signs by the Royal Automobile Association. But that was a different age, especially on the roads.
Before almost any other area, theirs will be the best signed part of the country. If they feel that this traffic signing is being overdone, they must remember that we are living in an age of very fast motorcars. Unashamedly, we are concerned primarily with the heavy death roll and the number of accident casualties on our roads. Road safety must take precedence even over amenity, although no one would wish to destroy amenity unnecessarily.
If there is a clash between the two interests, surely road safety should come first, provided that we try to avoid adverse effects on amenity to the best of our ability. In all good faith, the Ministry and the local authorities try to do this. It comes down ultimately to the fact that it is no good giving overriding priority to the protection of amenity if the death or injury roll is such that a large number of citizens are not able to enjoy the amenities which we are trying to preserve for them. This is one of the difficulties overtaking us in matters of road safety.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of specific points, including examples of houses that were unnecessarily baulked by large signs and cottages and scheduled historic buildings that were hidden. He also asked if there was to be an inspection of this area. There has been an inspection, but there will be a fuller one when the signing is complete. I can assure him that there is no desire on the part of the Ministry or the county council stubbornly to stick to anything which is obviously wrong. We want these signs to be a success, in terms of road safety, in terms of amenity, and in terms of acceptability.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eight o'clock a.m.